THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU WRIT PETITION No.13850 of 2010 Dated: 28.06.2010 Between: M.A.N. Patrudu. … Petitioner. And The APSRTC rep. by its Managing Director, Musheerabad, Hyderabad, And others. … Respondents. ORDER: It appears, while the petitioner was serving as Mechanic with the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (for short ‘the Corporation) at Paderu Depot of Visakhapatnam Rural, departmental proceedings were initiated against him on the ground that he used unparliamentary language against the duty Supervisor and, ultimately, he was suspended from service on 06.11.2009, by duly issuing a charge sheet on the same day enumerating the following charges: “1) For having shouted with loud voice on the duty Supervisor while you were on duty on 14.10.2009 when he had advised you to report the superintendent (Mech)/Paderu to explain the last two days absence of yours which constitutes misconduct under Regulation No.28 (viii) & (xxi) of APSRTC Employee’s (Conduct) Regulations 1963. 2) For having used unparliamentary language as “YEE NA KODUKU NAKU ABSENT VESADU” while you were on duty on 14.10.2009 with the on duty supervisor which constitutes misconduct under Regulation No.28(viii) & (xxi) of APSRTC Employee’s (Conduct) Regulations 1963.” After the explanation of the petitioner was called for and after a detailed enquiry was conducted into the charges leveled against him, the 3rd respondent issued the show cause notice dated 04.06.2010 proposing the punishment of removal from service. The grievance of the petitioner is that the Enquiry Officer mechanically submitted a report, holding him guilty of the charges framed against him, and basing on that report, the 3rd respondent, without properly assessing the case and though there is no serious misconduct, issued the impugned show cause notice dated 04.06.2010 proposing the punishment of removal from service, which is unwarranted, and in pursuance of the said show cause notice, the respondents are bent upon removing him from service, in spite of the charges being trivial in nature. Hence, this writ petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the charges framed against the petitioner are trivial in nature and, therefore, proposing a drastic punishment of removal from service for the said charges is unwarranted. Per contra, Sri K. Madhava Reddy, the learned counsel for the respondents, strenuously contended that the impugned notice is only a show cause notice and, therefore, the writ petition is not maintainable. I have given my earnest consideration to the respective submissions made by the learned counsel on either side and perused the impugned show cause notice and other material made available on record. Though it is the contention of the learned counsel for the respondents that the writ petition is not maintainable against a show cause notice, a reading of the charge sheet would indicate that the charges framed therein are trivial in nature, and even if they are proved, the same may not warrant the punishment of removal of the petitioner from service, unless and until some past instances of the petitioner behaving in the same manner are found. No such past instances have been referred to in the impugned show cause notice. Thus, in the circumstances, if the petitioner is liable to be imposed with punishment for the charges framed, the respondents shall consider imposing a lesser punishment than that of removal from service. With the above direction, the writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. _____________ C.V.RAMULU,J 28.06.2010 v v