IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No: 16774 of 1997 BETWEEN: A. Shanmukachary son of Late Sri Subanna Chary, Andhra Bank Head Office, Hyderabad R/o of Hyderabad. ... PETITIONER AND 1 Andhra Bank represented by its Chairman & Managing Director Head Office, Saifabad, Hyderabad. 2 Dy. General Manager (HRD) Personnel Department, Andhra Bank Head Office, Saifabad, Hyderabad. ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court may be pleased to issue a writ order or direction more particular one in the nature of Mandamus declaring the proposed action by the second respondent in its proceedings Ref No:666/20/V/T-39/221 dt:20.6.97 as violative of the Fundamental Rights guaranteed to the Petitioner under Article 14, 16 and 21 apart from being illegal or in the alternative declare Regulation 11 of the Andhra Bank Officer Employees (Discipline & Appeal) regulations 1981 as Unconstitutional and the Provisions under Section 10 (1) (b) of the Banking Regulation Act,1949 is in applicable to the case of the petitioner at this stage and consequently refrain the respondents from taking any further action in the matter and pass such other order or orders. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI Counsel for the Respondents: DR.K.LAKSHMI NARASIMHA (SC FOR ANDHRA BANK) The Court made the following: ORDER: This writ petition is filed challenging the show cause notice dated 20.06.1997 proposing to dismiss the petitioner on the ground of his conviction in a criminal case. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that subsequent to the filing of this writ petition the petitioner was removed from service and the criminal appeal in CRLA.No.378 of 1997 filed before this Court against the order of conviction was allowed by this Court leading to the petitioner’s acquittal. Learned counsel further submitted that following the said judgment of this court, the petitioner was reinstated into service. 3. Form these facts, it is evident that the cause in this writ petition filed questioning the show cause notice does not survive for consideration. However, the learned counsel for the petitioner seeks liberty to avail appropriate remedy in the event the petitioner felt aggrieved by denial of any of the benefits flowing out of his acquittal. It is needless to observe that the petitioner is always free to avail such remedies as are available to him in law in such an event and dismissal of this writ petition does not come in his way on invoking such legal remedies. With these observations, the writ petition is dismissed as infructuous. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________________ C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY, J December 18, 2008 DSK