IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE THIRTIETH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 13719 of 2008 Between: B. Chenchaiah, S/o. Late B. Subbaiah, R/o. 1-588, Satyavathi Nagar, Chinnapadugupadu, Nellore District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 A.P. State Housing Corporation Ltd,. Rep by its Managing Director, Urdu Galli, Himayathnagar, Hyderabad. 2 A.P. State Housing Corporation Ltd,. Rep by its District Manager, Nellore, Nellore District. 3 A.P. State Housing Corporation Ltd,. Rep by its District Manager, Nizamabad, Nizamabad District. 4 The Chairman, A.P. State Housing Corporation Ltd,. Urdu Galli, Hyderabad. .....RESPONDENT(S) Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to to issue a Writ of Mandamus, or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, declaring the proceedings No. Vig(VI)/2493/NZB/2005, dt. 1-3-2008 passed by the first respondent as illegal, arbitrary, perverse and in violation of principles of natural justice and set aside the same and reinstate the petitioner and pass Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.C.RAGHU Counsel for the Respondent No.: MR.K.MOHAN RAMI REDDY The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 13719 of 2008 ORDER: The petitioner was appointed as an Assistant Engineer in the A.P. State Housing Corporation Limited. Disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him, by issuing a charge sheet, dated 29.05.2005. On considering the explanation offered by the petitioner, 1st respondent appointed an enquiry officer. The charges leveled against the petitioner were held proved. The enquiry report was accepted by the 1st respondent and ultimately, vide proceedings, dated 01.03.2008, he imposed the punishment of removal from service against the petitioner, apart from directing recovery of a sum of Rs.1,39,300/- with interest at the rate of 12% per annum. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Chairman of the Corporation, 4th respondent herein. The petitioner challenges the order of removal itself, by raising several grounds. It is also urged that even while the appeal is pending, the respondents are trying to take steps to recover the amount indicated in the order of removal. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. Though the petitioner has challenged the very order of removal, by raising several grounds, this Court is not inclined to entertain the writ petition. The reason is that the petitioner has already availed the departmental remedy of appeal with the 4th respondent. Since the appeal was filed as recently as on 30.05.2008, it cannot be said that there was any undue delay on the part of the 4th respondent. At the same time, the interests of the petitioner need to be protected at least to the extent of recovery ordered against him. For the foregoing reasons, the writ petition is disposed of, directing that the 4th respondent shall dispose of the appeal presented by the petitioner, against the order of removal, dated 01.03.2008, as early as possible. Pending disposal of the appeal, respondents 1 to 3 shall not effect recovery of the amount of Rs.1,39,300/-, as directed in the said order. There shall be no order as to costs. _________ 30.06.2008 JSU ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{RLD} THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 13719 of 2008 Date: 30.06.2008 JSU