ORDER : Since the issue involved and the parties are one and the same, these Writ Petitions are being disposed of by this common order. Writ Petition No.22977 of 2009 2. This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking Writ of Mandamus for the following relief: …declaring the action of the respondent No.1 in issuing the proceedings vide Memo No.SE/O/KDP/Adm/PO/C2/F.Enq/D.No.204/2009, dt.22.10.2009 and subsequent termination proceedings issued by the respondent No.3 vide Memo No.DEE/O/RJP/Jao/Adm/S2/D.No.3414/2009, dated 26.10.2009 as illegal, arbitrary, unjust, unreasonable, perverse and unfair labour practice besides violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the 1st respondent to continue the petitioner in employment on par with his colleagues and pass such other order or orders as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper under the circumstances of this case and to meet the ends of the justice. 3. The brief facts of the case are as follows: a. The petitioner was initially appointed on 03.04.2007 as Contract Junior Lineman. The respondent No.1 by proceedings dated 28.01.2009 appointed the respondent No.3 as an Enquriy Officer to enquire into the allegations of manipulation of PR.No.041506 dated 24.01.2008 for Rs.1850/- against the Petitioner. b. The respondent No.3 framed charges vide Annexure-I dated 31.01.2009. The petitioner participated in the enquiry and denied the charges framed against him. Sri T.Narasimhulu, who is the crucial witness to the case deposed that he has given Rs.850/- to Petitioner and he gave receipt to him for Rs.850/-, but he never gave Rs.1850/- to the petitioner. The respondent No.3 after conducting enquiry submitted his report dated 31.3.2009 holding that the charge is proved. c. The respondent No.2 vide memo dated 06.06.2009 issued a show cause notice to the petitioner, before awarding the punishment and the Petitioner has submitted his explanation on 14.07.2009 requesting to drop the proposed punishment. Basing on the concurrence Committee’s opinion dated 16.10.2009 the respondent No.1 by Memo dated 22.10.2009 requested the respondent No.2 to pass orders terminating the petitioner from service. Questioning the same, the present writ petition is filed. Writ Petition No.13795 of 2018 4. Basing on the concurrence Committee’s opinion dated 16.10.2009 the respondent No.1 by Memo dated 22.10.2009 requested the respondent No.2 to pass orders terminating the petitioner from service. Questioning the same, the present writ petition is filed. Writ Petition No.13795 of 2018 4. This Writ Petition is filed by the petitioner, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking Writ of Mandamus for the following relief: “i) declaring the action of the respondents 1 to 3 in not regularizing petitioner?s services, not commencing and declaring his probation, not paying him regular time scale, not showing him in seniority list as per merit, not giving him promotion/s on par with his immediate junior upon his reinstatement into service in pursuance of the unqualified interim suspension order dt.19.11.2009 granted in WPMP No.32059 of 2009 in WP No.22977 of 2009; and also ii) the action of the 2nd respondent in directing the 3rd respondent to pay minimum scale attached to the post of Junior Linemen (JLM) to the petitioner vide Memo No.CGM/HRD/JS/DGM-DC/PO (DC)/F.285-KDP-O&M/D.No. 1034/2014, dt.10.09.2014 instead of directing to pay regular time scale attached to the post on par with similarly situated persons; and also iii) the action of the 3rd respondent in not initiating any steps in furtherance of the letter dt.29.12.2016 of the 4th respondent for regularizing his services and also for granting all incidental and consequential benefits including seniority, promotion and monitory benefits attached to the post on par with immediate junior as illegal, arbitrary, discriminative, opposed to “doctrine of legitimate expectation? besides violative of Arts.14 & 16 of the Constitution of India; and iv) consequently, direct the respondents 1 to 3 to regularize the service of the petitioner and also for declaration of probation, pay regular time scale, show in seniority list at appropriate place as per merit in selection process and promote him on par with his immediate junior without reference to the Memo dt.10.09.2014 of the 2nd respondent besides directing the respondents to grant all incidental and consequential service-cum-monitory benefits attached to the post and further direct the respondents to pay arrears of pay and allowances with interest @ 18% per annum; and pass such other order or orders or directions as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. 5. 5. The facts of the case in brief are thus; a. Petitioner was initially appointed as Contract Junior Lineman (CJLM) on 03.04.2007. The services of the petitioner were terminated vide Proceedings in Memo No.SE/O/KDP/Adm/PO/C2/F.Enq/D.No. 204/2009, dated 22.10.2009 and subsequent proceedings in Memo.No. DEE/O/RJP/JAO/ADMN/S2/D.No.3414/2009, dated 26.10.2009 by the SE(O), Kadapa and DEE(O), who are respondents 3 and 4 herein, respectively. b. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed WP No.22977 of 2009 and obtained an interim suspension order dated 19.11.2009 in W.P.M.P. No.32059 of 2009 and it reads as under: “However, the procedure prescribed in Regulation 10(2)(a) is of fundamental character and its violation by itself invalidates the entire proceedings since the need to appoint Enquiry Officer would arise only where the disciplinary authority is not satisfied with the explanation offered by the delinquent and proposes to inflict a major penalty. Such a decision can be arrived at only when a show case notice or charge sheet is given by the disciplinary authority himself. Since the respondents committed breach of such fundamental requirement, prima facie, this court is of the opinion that the impugned order of termination cannot be sustained. Accordingly, there shall be interim suspension as prayed for.” c. In furtherance to the said interim suspension order, the petitioner made a representation dated 23.11.2009 to the respondent No.4. Since no action is taken, the Petitioner filed a contempt case in CC No.1692 of 2009 for not giving effect to the said interim suspension order. The said CC was closed by order dated 28.06.2010 recording the petitioner’s reinstatement. d. The petitioner made a representation claiming full salary and other benefits, monitory and service from the date of his reinstatement till date. The respondent No.2 vide impugned Memo dated 10.09.2014 accorded permission to the respondent No.3 for payment of minimum scale as applicable and eligible to the petitioner till finalization of WP No.22977 of 2009 and WASR No.4233 of 2010. In furtherance thereto, the respondent No.3 ordered the respondent No.4 to pay minimum scale applicable and eligible to him as he is already getting minimum scale attached to the said post. From the date of his appointment till 31.10.2014, he was paid the consolidated pay of Rs.5,630/- and from 01.11.2014 onwards, he was paying minimum basic pay of JLM. In furtherance thereto, the respondent No.3 ordered the respondent No.4 to pay minimum scale applicable and eligible to him as he is already getting minimum scale attached to the said post. From the date of his appointment till 31.10.2014, he was paid the consolidated pay of Rs.5,630/- and from 01.11.2014 onwards, he was paying minimum basic pay of JLM. e. On 15.12.2016, the petitioner made a representation to the respondent Nos.1,3 and 4 stating that the services of all his juniors were got regularized, probations were declared; have been receiving regular pay scale and allowances attached to the post and even promoted twice till date, but, the case of the petitioner was not considered for promotion. The respondent No.4 forwarded the representation to the respondent No.3. f. TS GENCO rectified the mistake and issued revised orders in WP No.7797 of 2018 which covers the facts of the subject writ petition and in the instant case, AP GENCO also should rectify its mistake. Questioning the inaction of the respondents, the present writ petition is filed. Counter Averments 6. A counter affidavit has been filed by the respondents putting the petitioner to the strict proof of the allegations which are not specifically admitted. It is stated that an enquiry under Regulation 10(2)(a) of the APSEB Appeal and Discipline Regulation as adopted by the APSPDCL has been initiated by the respondent against the petitioner; respondent No.3 appointed the Divisional Engineer, Enquiries, APSPDCL, Tirupati as an Enquiry Officer for enquiry into the allegations of manipulating the permanent receipts issued to the consumers and misappropriating the balance amounts collected from the consumers. After conducting due enquiry, the Enquiry Officer submitted a detailed enquiry report stating the charge leveled against the petitioner is established, and proposed awarding the punishment of dismissal. The Government of Andhra Pradesh vide G.O.Ms.No.2, dated 04.01.1999 issued instructions to the effect that all proved cases of misappropriation, bribery, corruption, forgery, modesty of women etc., the penalty of dismissal shall be imposed to ensure clean and efficient administration and the orders were adopted by the APTRANSCO vide T.O.O. (Addl.Secy) Ms.No.214, dated 11.11.2002. Therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to the relief sought for in this writ petition. 7. Heard Sri Peeta Raman, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri V.R.Reddy Kovvuri, learned Standing Counsel for respondent- Corporation and perused the material on record. WP No.22977 of 2009 8. Therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to the relief sought for in this writ petition. 7. Heard Sri Peeta Raman, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri V.R.Reddy Kovvuri, learned Standing Counsel for respondent- Corporation and perused the material on record. WP No.22977 of 2009 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the enquiry report suffers from serious infirmities. The respondent No.1 by proceedings dated 28.01.2009 appointed the Enquiry Officer even before framing the charge and issuance of the show case notice. Charge framed against the petitioner reads as under: Under Regulation 10(2)(a) of APSE Board Employees Disciplines and Appeal Regulations, as adapted by to APSPDCL, the Superintending Engineer/Operation/APSEDCL/Kadapa appoints (Designation of the authority who ordered enquiry) the Divisional Engineer/Enquiry Cell/Tirupati as enquiry Officer to enquire on the allegation of manipulation of PR.No.041506, dt.24.01.08 for Rs.1850/- against Sri B.Siva Sankar Raju, CJLM/Operation Section, Atlur of Operation Division, Rajampeta.” 9. Coming to the Memo dated 31.1.2009 issued by respondent No.3, a show cause notice has been issued to the petitioner to submit his explanation to the charge sheet filed against the petitioner. As per charge sheet the amounts manipulated by the petitioner are hereunder: S.No. Sc.No. & Village PR No. Collected amount as per original PR Recorded amount as per duplicate PR Date 1 4-Akuthotapalli 041506 1850.00 850.00 24-1-08 2 97-Mutukur 041836 148.00 48.00 26.3.08 3 31-Mutukur 041843 450.00 50.00 26.3.08 4 79-Mutukur 041846 180.00 80.00 26.3.08 10. As rightly submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner, in the charge sheet it shows that the manipulation of four PRS, which is not the subject matter of the enquiry. It appears that it is beyond the scope of the enquiry except No.1 PR number relating to the amount of Rs.1850/-. The others are not found in the orders of the Superintending Engineer. It is apt to extract the finding of the Enquiry Officer on the manipulation of the PR as alleged against the petitioner. FINDINGS OF THE ENQUIRY OFFICER : By going through the reply to charge sheet, depositions and cross examinations received during the Oral Enquiry and documentary evidence on records, it is found that the charge framed against Sri B.Siva Sankar Raju, Contract Junior Lineman, Operation Section, Atlur, Operation Division, Rajampeta is established. On 27-3-2008 the Assistant Accounts Officer/ERO/Badvel along with Assistant Divisional Engineer/OCC/Badvel & Assistant Engineer/Operation/Atlur went to Mutukur in Atlur Section for attending arrears collection. On 27-3-2008 the Assistant Accounts Officer/ERO/Badvel along with Assistant Divisional Engineer/OCC/Badvel & Assistant Engineer/Operation/Atlur went to Mutukur in Atlur Section for attending arrears collection. On verification of records of collection of arrears of some of the services & original PRs, it is found that Sri B.Siva Sankar Raju, Contract Junior Lineman of Atlur Section has issued original PR.Nos.041836, 041843 & 041846 to the consumer of Sc. Nos.97, 31 & 79 Mutukur on 26.3.2008 duly collecting the amount of Rs.148, Rs.450 & Rs.180 respectively where in it was recorded as Rs.48, Rs.50 & Rs.80 in duplicate PR Nos.041836, 041843 & 041846 instead of Rs.148, Rs.450 & Rs.180 and the amount collected by delinquent on 26-3- 2008 from the PR Nos.41828 to 41818 is handed over to ERO/Badvel on 27-3- 2008 vide BCRC.Nos.28023 to 28024 & PCB.No.1386 with delay of one day. The Assistant Accounts Officer/ERO/Badvel had found that the delinquent added the number 1' (one) before the amounts Rs.48/-, Rs.80/- and 4' (four) before the amount Rs.50/- in the original PRs bearing Nos.041836, 041846 & 041843 before issue the original PRs to the concerned consumers. The Assistant Engineer/Operation/Atlur has inspected Akuthotapalli distribution and gone to physical disconnection of the service, at that time HSC.No.4 of Akuthotapalli in Operation Section Atlur was under D.C list. The consumer Sri T.Narasimhulu of HSC.No.4 objected for disconnection and shown his original PR containing amount as Rs.1850-00 on 24-1-2008 vide PR.No.041506 and gave his representation for verification. The Assistant Engineer/Operation/Atlur submitted a report to the Assistant Accounts Officer/ERO/Badvel for verification vide his Lr.No.AE/O/Atlur/D.No.Camp/BVL/08, dt:16-12-2008. On verification, it is found by the Assistant Accounts Officer/ERO/Badvel that duplicate PR and BCRC.No.14612 contain only Rs.850/- and the same amount is handed over by the delinquent to ERO/Badvel. During oral enquiry the consumer of HSC.No.4 deviated his earlier version and he stated that he paid C.C charges Rs.850/- only, which is not convincing. According to the material evidence on record it is evident that the delinquent had manipulated the PRs and misappropriated the balance amounts collected from the consumers Se.No.4 of Akuthotapalli and Sc. Nos. 97, 31 & 79 Mutukur village Le., Rs. 1000/-, Rs.100/-, Rs.100/- Rs. 100/- vide PR Nos. 041506, 041836, 041843 & 041846 respectively. HENCE THE CHARGE IS HELD PROVED 11. It appears that the consumer has not stated before the Enquiry officer that the petitioner having collected Rs.1850/- and issued the receipt for Rs.850/- only. Nos. 97, 31 & 79 Mutukur village Le., Rs. 1000/-, Rs.100/-, Rs.100/- Rs. 100/- vide PR Nos. 041506, 041836, 041843 & 041846 respectively. HENCE THE CHARGE IS HELD PROVED 11. It appears that the consumer has not stated before the Enquiry officer that the petitioner having collected Rs.1850/- and issued the receipt for Rs.850/- only. As per the findings, consumer of HSC.No.4 deviated his earlier version and he stated that he paid CC charges Rs.850/- only, which is not convincing. The order is bereft of any reason as to why the statement of the consumer is not convincing. 12. On the other hand, learned standing counsel for the respondent- Corporation would submit that the petitioner without availing the remedy of appeal, filed the present writ petition which is not maintainable, that the enquiry has been conducted according to the rules of the A.P.S.E.B and that there are no grounds warranting interference of this Court in the writ jurisdiction. Learned Counsel would also submit that the petitioner has manipulated the amounts collected from the consumers by not depositing the same to the department. The petitioner having participated in the enquiry now cannot claim that the enquiry is conducted in violation of the rules of the APSEB and prays for dismissal of the writ petition. 13. It is not in dispute that the petitioner was terminated from the service while working as a contract Junior Lineman as per the order dated 26.10.2009 issued by the respondent No.2. The impugned order was passed in exercise of the powers conferred under Regulation 10(2)(a) of the APSE Board Employees Disciplines and Appeal Regulations (for short ‘the Regulations’) as adopted by APSPDCL. No material has been placed on record to show that after issuance of the show cause notice calling explanation from the individual and having not satisfied with the said explanation, the enquiry officer has been appointed. Admittedly, the enquiry officer was appointed by the disciplinary authority prior to the charge sheet issued to the individual. 14. The APCPDCL is governed by the Andhra Pradesh State Electricity Board Employees Discipline and Appeal Regulations, 1970. Regulation 5 (vi) details compulsory retirement, otherwise than as provided in the Board's Pension Regulations, as one of the penalties that may be imposed upon an employee. 14. The APCPDCL is governed by the Andhra Pradesh State Electricity Board Employees Discipline and Appeal Regulations, 1970. Regulation 5 (vi) details compulsory retirement, otherwise than as provided in the Board's Pension Regulations, as one of the penalties that may be imposed upon an employee. As per Regulation 10(2)(a) for imposing on a member of the service the penalty specified in Regulation 5 (vi), amongst others, the authority competent to impose the penalty is required to appoint an Enquiry Officer, who shall be superior in rank to the person on whom it is proposed to impose the penalty, or shall itself hold an enquiry either suo motu or on a direction from a higher authority. The Regulation further provides that in every such case the grounds on which it is proposed to take action shall be reduced to the form of definite charge or charges which shall be communicated to the person charged, together with a statement of the allegations on which each charge is based and of any other circumstances which it is proposed to take into consideration in passing orders in the case. The employee is thereupon required, within a reasonable time, to file his written statement of defence and state whether he desires an oral enquiry. Such employee for the purpose of preparing his defence, has to be permitted to inspect and take extracts from such official records as he may specify. On receipt of the statement of defence, an oral enquiry has to be held, if desired by the employee or decided upon by the Enquiry Officer or the competent authority and in such enquiry, the employee is entitled to cross examine the witnesses and give evidence in person and to have such witnesses called as he may wish. Upon completion of the enquiry, the Enquiry Officer is required to forward the proceedings of the enquiry to the competent authority for necessary further action. 15. In the light of the language employed in the above regulation, the procedure which was adopted by the department appears to be contrary to the Regulations. No opportunity has been given to the petitioner to submit his explanation which is contrary to the Regulations. It is apt to say that the authority is having every jurisdiction to appoint the enquiry officer when the disciplinary authority is not satisfied with the explanation offered by the individual. No opportunity has been given to the petitioner to submit his explanation which is contrary to the Regulations. It is apt to say that the authority is having every jurisdiction to appoint the enquiry officer when the disciplinary authority is not satisfied with the explanation offered by the individual. Unless it is done, the question of appointing the enquiry officer does not arise. 16. Learned counsel for the petitioner in support of his contention, placed reliance on the judgment of a Division Bench of the composite High Court of Andhra Pradesh in Ch. Appala Reddy V. astern Power Distribution Company of Andhra Pradesh Ltd., Visakhapatnam and others, 2005(3) ALD 525 (DB) wherein, it was clearly observed that while interpreting the object of the Regulation 10(2)(a) of the Regulations, it mandates the appointing authority to appoint an enquiry officer, only when he proposes to impose major penalty and such a proposal can emerge only after ascertaining the explanation from the employee concerned. It is relevant to extract paragraphs 6,7 and 8 of the Judgment and it reads thus: 6. In any disciplinary proceedings, the necessity to appoint an Enquiry Officer arises only when the appointing authority points out certain acts of indiscipline on the part of the delinquent employee and the explanation offered by the employee is not satisfactory. On the other hand, where the explanation is found to be satisfactory, the necessity to proceed further does not arise or remain. In V.K.Khanna's case (supra), the Supreme Court reinstated this position of law and held that appointment of an Enquiry Officer even before a show-cause notice or charge-sheet is served upon an employee is unknown to service jurisprudence. It was further observed that in such an event, an element of bias exists vis-a-vis the Enquiry Officer. 7. The appointing authority would be in a position to apply his mind to the facts of the case only when he calls upon an employee to explain as to the acts of mis-conduct, noticed by him. Depending on his satisfaction, on consideration of the explanation, he may have to choose either to proceed further or to drop the proceedings. Even in a case, where he proposes to proceed further, but his inclination is only to impose a minor penalty, the necessity to appoint an Enquiry Officer may not arise. Depending on his satisfaction, on consideration of the explanation, he may have to choose either to proceed further or to drop the proceedings. Even in a case, where he proposes to proceed further, but his inclination is only to impose a minor penalty, the necessity to appoint an Enquiry Officer may not arise. Conversely, the need to appoint an Enquiry Officer would arise if only the appointing authority is not satisfied with the explanation offered by the employee and that he proposes to inflict a major penalty. 8. All these steps can emerge only when a show-cause notice or chargesheet is given by the appointing authority. Such a course was, admittedly, not followed in this case. As observed earlier, initiation of disciplinary proceedings against the appellant commenced with the appointment of an Enquiry Officer and the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court gets attracted to the facts of the case. The Regulation 10(2)(a), upon which, reliance is placed by the respondents, does not salvage the situation. On the other hand, the Regulation does not support the course of action, adopted by the respondents. In clear terms, it mandates that the appointing authority shall appoint an Enquiry Officer only when he proposes to impose the penalty indicated in certain clauses. The proposal to impose such a penalty can, invariably, emerge only after ascertaining the views or obtaining the explanation from the employee concerned. Viewed from any angle, the order challenged in the writ appeal, cannot be sustained. (emphasis supplied) 17. Per contra, learned standing counsel for the respondent-corporation placed reliance on the Judgment of the Division Bench of the Composite High Court of Andhra Pradesh in K. Swarna Kumari, Subordinate Judge v. Govt. Of Andhra Pradesh, 2006(2) ALD 585 and contended that mere breach of the rule is not sufficient to declare the entire proceedings as illegal, unless it is shown that the petitioner suffered any prejudice on account of such procedural irregularity. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner participated in the enquiry without any complaint and now he cannot raise the issue in ordering termination. 18. This Court can take guidance from the Judgment referred to supra on the point of doctrine of prejudice as applicable to the service jurisprudence relating to the disciplinary proceedings. Needless to say, to nullify the entire proceedings, the petitioner has to establish the prejudice, which was caused to him. 18. This Court can take guidance from the Judgment referred to supra on the point of doctrine of prejudice as applicable to the service jurisprudence relating to the disciplinary proceedings. Needless to say, to nullify the entire proceedings, the petitioner has to establish the prejudice, which was caused to him. Though the disciplinary authority ordered the enquiry relating to the one PR No., which is mentioned for Rs.1850/- which was remained unproved, the enquiry officer has taken other PRs, which are beyond the scope of the enquiry. In addition to that, when the Regulation 10(2)(a) of the Regulations mandates appointment of the enquiry officer when disciplinary authority is not satisfied with the explanation of the employee on the charges, deviation from such procedure goes to the root of the case and it invalidates the proceedings. 19. It appears that the Regulation 10(2)(a) of the Regulations is also made with an owed object that the disciplinary authority has to first satisfy himself with the explanation of the individual and if the disciplinary authority is not satisfied only then, the enquiry officer needs to be appointed. As such, the individual may have an opportunity to get his case examined by the disciplinary authority at the first instance to avoid further proceedings. In that view of the matter, the termination order does not stand before law for scrutiny. 20. In that view of the matter, since WP No.22977 of 2009 is allowed and the impugned Memo dated 22.10.2009 of the respondent No.1 is set aside. The respondent-authorities are directed to consider the case of the petitioner for continuing him in the service of the respondent– corporation on par with his colleagues, as per the governing rules and regulations of the respondent Corporation. No costs. W.P. No.13795 of 2018 21. Learned counsel for the respondent would submit that because the petitioner is continued in the service and was not relieved by virtue of the judicial order of interim suspension dated 19.11.2009 in WPMP No.32059 of 2009 in WP No.22977 of 2009, they have not extended all the benefits which were sought by the petitioner in this writ petition. 22. Learned counsel for the respondent would submit that the Assistant Engineer has submitted a report dated 24.12.2008 for taking further necessary action informing that the petitioner has manipulated the receipts in the other case. 22. Learned counsel for the respondent would submit that the Assistant Engineer has submitted a report dated 24.12.2008 for taking further necessary action informing that the petitioner has manipulated the receipts in the other case. Learned Counsel would further submit that since there is a prima facie case, the enquiry officer has to enquire into the allegations leveled against the petitioner. The argument advanced falls to ground, for the reason that the report dated 24.12.2008, there was no mention about such details in the order of the disciplinary authority while appointing the enquiry officer. At the end of the day, the respondent cannot club these two reports dated 31.3.2008 and 21.12.2008, without there being any reference of such report in the proceedings of the disciplinary authority. 23. Learned counsel for the respondent further submits that relating to three other receipts they are well placed in the charge sheet which was served on the individual. The petitioner has to produce a witness for the other receipts but failed to produce any witness against the other items of the charge sheet. There is no force in the above argument for the reason that when the department wanted to punish the employee for a major punishment of termination from service though this is a departmental enquiry, they have to establish the said charge before imposing punishment against the individual. 24. Accordingly, these writ petitions are allowed and the termination proceedings dated 26.10.2009 which were issued by the respondent No.3 are declared as illegal and void and are hereby set aside. The respondents are directed to attend the grievance of the petitioner for regularization of his service with all consequential benefits on par with his immediate juniors as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the copy of the order. No order as to costs. As a sequel, pending applications, if any, shall stand closed.