THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO WRIT PETITION No. 21498 of 2010 O R D E R: Heard learned counsel for the writ petitioner and the learned counsel for the 1st respondent. The petitioner is presently working as a Lecturer in Chemistry in the 1st respondent degree college at Ongole. By an order passed on 09.08.2010, the Secretary and Correspondent of the said college has imposed the punishment of stoppage of one annual grade increment with cumulative effect for the misconduct alleged against the writ petitioner. Learned counsel for the writ petitioner has taken a plea that stoppage of one annual grade increment with cumulative effect is a major punishment and such a major punishment could not have been imposed without conducting a detailed enquiry into the matter, whereas, in the instant case, the Correspondent and Secretary of the management of the 1st respondent college has merely issued a notice to the writ petitioner on 07.07.2010, alleging the misconduct against him, pursuant to which, he has filed his detailed explanation on 15.07.2010, and without conducting any enquiry thereafter, straightaway, the impugned order has been passed. It is, therefore, submitted that procedural fairness has not been adopted by the 1st respondent college while penalizing the petitioner. Even on merits, it is submitted that the Secretary and Correspondent of the 1st respondent college is guilty of misappropriation of more than Rs. 2 lacs of the Teachers’ Provident Fund and since the writ petitioner and others have raised that issue, the petitioner is sought to be victimized. Per contra, the learned counsel for the 1st respondent would contend that as per Rule 5 of the Andhra Pradesh Private Institutions Employees Disciplinary Control Rules, 1983, no distinction has been drawn between punishment of withholding of an increment with cumulative effect and without cumulative effect in the said rules and when these rules are read along with sub-section (5) of Section 79 of the Andhra Pradesh Education Act, 1982, there was no requirement to conduct a detailed enquiry into the allegations because the punishment imposed being not one of the three punishments listed out in sub-section (1) of Section 79. Be that as it may, the learned counsel for the 1st respondent would also point out that any order of punishment imposed upon an employee of a private recognized educational institution is appealable in terms of Section 80 and without availing such an effective alternative remedy, the petitioner could not have rushed to this Court. Section 80 of the Andhra Pradesh Education Act, 1982 does provide for an appeal. The appellate authority has been conferred with very wide powers in terms of sub-section (2) thereof to entertain the appeal and pass orders considered appropriate thereon, after putting the management of the institution on notice, in terms of sub- section (3) thereof. Therefore, the appellate authority will not only be examining the disputed questions of fact but also the question as to whether the stoppage of increment with cumulative effect is treated as a major punishment or as a minor punishment as well. As a principle of prudence, whenever there is an effective alternative remedy available to a party, the High Court should be slow to interfere in exercise of the power available to it under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Availing an appellate remedy would not only help in settling the facts correctly by the appellate/revisional authority concerned, but it would help them to focus the attention on the prevailing practices as well. Thereafter, any aggrieved party can approach this Court and the matter can be examined from the stand point of view of its legality. It is, therefore, always appropriate for a party to avail the existing effective alternative remedy before invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Since the impugned order has been passed only on 09.08.2010, the writ petitioner has got still time to avail the appellate remedy. In view of the availability of the alternative remedy, I do not consider this to be a fit case to entertain the Writ Petition at this stage. Therefore, without expressing any opinion on merits of the matter, this Writ Petition is dismissed at the admission stage, inasmuch as, the effective alternative remedy is available to the petitioner to be availed of, in terms of Section 80 of the 1982 Act. No costs. ---------------------------------- (NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO, J) 30th August 2010 ksld