K.S. Rayudu, v. . The Regional Manager,

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO WP.No.19166 of 2017 ORDER :

Heard the counsel for petitioner, and Sri A. Ravi Babu, counsel for respondents.

2.

The petitioner's grievance is that petitioner had submitted a review petition to the 1st respondent on 19.08.2016 with regard to imposition of punishment on him relating to misconduct of unauthorized absence, and that the 1st respondent is not disposing of the same.

3.

The counsel for petitioner states that the word 'Appeal' was used in the subject by mistake, and that it is in fact a 'Review'. 4.

Sri A. Ravi Babu, learned counsel for respondents, states that the 1st respondent will treat the application dt.19.08.2016 not as an 'Appeal' but as a 'Review' and decide the same in accordance with law within a period of eight (08) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order.

5.

Since, prima facie, the use of the word 'Appeal' in the said proceedings appears to be a bona fide mistake, the 1st respondent is directed to treat it as a 'Review' and decide the same within eight (08) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order, and communicate the same to the petitioner.

::2::

MSR,J wp_19166_2017 6.

Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of with the above directions. No order as to costs.

7.

As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending if any in this Writ Petition, shall stand closed.

__________________________________ JUSTICE M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO Date: 14-06-2017 Ndr/*