APHC010667102016 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH FRIDAY, THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM WRIT PETITION NO: Between: 1. CH. PRASADA RAO, S/O VEERA SWAMY, AGED 49 YEARS R/O LAKKAVARAM VILLAGE MALKIPURAM MANDAL, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT 1. THE DEPUTY GENERA MANAGER B O, AND THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY STATE BANK OF INDIA ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE VIJAYAWADA 2. THE REGIONAL MANAGER THE DISCIPLINARY AUTHORITY, REGION NO. VII, STATE BANK OF INDIA, REGIONAL OFFICE AMALAPRUAM, EAST GODAVARI DISTRI 3. THE BRANCH MANAGER, STATE BANK OF INDIA RAVULAPALEM BRANCH, RAVULAPALEM, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith pleased toto issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ (i) declaring to impose the punishment of have 6 increments stopped with cumulative effect vide proceedings No. F.25/74 dated 22.10.2014 of the Regional Manager & Disciplinary Authority, Zone VII of Regional Business Office, Amalapuram is illegal and unjust; (ii) and the order of the Appellate Authority dated IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM WRIT PETITION NO: 18146/2016 CH. PRASADA RAO, S/O VEERA SWAMY, AGED 49 YEARS R/O LAKKAVARAM VILLAGE MALKIPURAM MANDAL, EAST GODAVARI ...PETITIONER AND THE DEPUTY GENERA MANAGER B O, AND THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY STATE BANK OF INDIA ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE THE REGIONAL MANAGER THE DISCIPLINARY AUTHORITY, REGION NO. VII, STATE BANK OF INDIA, REGIONAL OFFICE AMALAPRUAM, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT THE BRANCH MANAGER, STATE BANK OF INDIA RAVULAPALEM BRANCH, RAVULAPALEM, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT ...RESPONDENT(S): Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased toto issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ (i) declaring to impose the punishment of have 6 increments stopped with cumulative effect vide eedings No. F.25/74 dated 22.10.2014 of the Regional Manager & Disciplinary Authority, Zone VII of Regional Business Office, Amalapuram is illegal and unjust; (ii) and the order of the Appellate Authority dated IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH [3504] FRIDAY, THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF JUNE THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM CH. PRASADA RAO, S/O VEERA SWAMY, AGED 49 YEARS R/O LAKKAVARAM VILLAGE MALKIPURAM MANDAL, EAST GODAVARI ...PETITIONER THE DEPUTY GENERA MANAGER B O, AND THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY STATE BANK OF INDIA ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE THE REGIONAL MANAGER THE DISCIPLINARY AUTHORITY, REGION NO. VII, STATE BANK OF INDIA, REGIONAL OFFICE THE BRANCH MANAGER, STATE BANK OF INDIA RAVULAPALEM BRANCH, RAVULAPALEM, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT ...RESPONDENT(S): Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the , the High Court may be pleased toto issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ (i) declaring to impose the punishment of have 6 increments stopped with cumulative effect vide eedings No. F.25/74 dated 22.10.2014 of the Regional Manager & Disciplinary Authority, Zone VII of Regional Business Office, Amalapuram is illegal and unjust; (ii) and the order of the Appellate Authority dated 2 HMRK,J W.P.No.18146 of 2016 16.03.2015 in rejecting the appeal as illegal and unjust; (iii) and consequently set aside the same and release all the consequential benefits; (iv) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. K UDAYA SRI Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. V UMA DEVI 3 HMRK,J W.P.No.18146 of 2016 The Court made the following Order: On 20.06.2025, there was no representation for the petitioner. Today also, in spite of posting the matter under the caption ‘for dismissal’, none appeared for the petitioner. 2. Since there is no representation continuously from the petitioner’s side, it seems that the petitioner is not interested to proceed with the matter. Hence, the Writ Petition is dismissed for non-prosecution. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, Interlocutory Applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. ______________________________ MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM, J Dated: 27.06.2025 MDP