THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU WRIT PETITION No.13376 of 2011 Dated: 30.04.2011 Between: A.Padma. .. Petitioner. And The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by the Project Director, District Water Management Agency, Medak District at Sanga Reddy, And another. .. Respondents. ORDER: Assailing the proceedings No.SA-3/DBK/1115/2010, dated 12.02.2011, issued by the 1st respondent, whereunder and whereby the petitioner was imposed with the punishment of termination from services and recovery of misappropriated amount, the present writ petition is filed. It is the case of the petitioner that while she was working as Field Assistant in Gambeerpur village, Dubbak Mandal, on the allegation that she had committed certain irregularities, disciplinary proceedings were initiated against her, and ultimately, the 1st respondent issued impugned proceedings, dated 12.02.2011, imposing the punishment of termination from services and recovery of misappropriated amount. The grievance of the petitioner is that without conducting any enquiry and without giving an opportunity to put forth her defence on the allegations leveled against her, the impugned proceedings are issued on the basis of the report of the social audit, which was conducted behind her back. Hence, this writ petition. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj and Rural Development appearing for respondent No.1 and Sri P.Raghavendra Reddy, learned counsel, appearing for respondent No.2. It is well established that the remedy provided for in Article 226 of the Constitution is a discretionary remedy and the High Court has always discretion to refuse to grant such a relief in certain circumstances even though a legal right might have been infringed. Availability of alternative remedy is one of such circumstances, which the High Court may take into account in refusing to exercise jurisdiction. Challenging the impugned proceedings, the petitioner is said to have already preferred a statutory appeal before the appellate authority/District Collector, Medak District. The cause of action in this writ petition and in the appeal said to have been preferred by the petitioner is one and the same. The petitioner cannot be permitted to prosecute two parallel cases simultaneously in respect of the same cause of action. Necessary orders have to be passed in accordance with rules and regulations by the appellate authority in the appeal preferred by the petitioner against the impugned proceedings. Hence, this writ petition is disposed of directing the petitioner to pursue her remedies before the appellate authority and the appellate authority is directed to dispose of the appeal preferred by the petitioner if pending before it, against the impugned proceedings, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. __________________ JUSTICE K.C.BHANU 30.04.2011 v v