IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 14503 of 2008 Between: A.Bhoopal Reddy S/o.Ramachandra Reddy GPCMS, Girijan Coop. Corporation Ltd., Narasampet, Warangal District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Girijan Cooperative Corporation Ltd., rep. by its Vice-Chairman & Managing Director, Visakhapatnam. 2 The Deputy General Manager (Finance) and Enquiry Officer, CHO, Girijan Cooperative Corporation Ltd., Visakhapatnam. .....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, order or direction more in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 1st respondent in issuing the impugned proceedings in Rc.No.1801/2005. Admn.6, dated 24.6.2006 as illegal, arbitrary, without power or authority, violative of principles of natural justice and violative of Art. 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequentially to direct the respondents to release all the retirements including gratuity, earned leave encashment etc. forthwith and to pass such other order or orders. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.M.SUDHIR KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent No.: MR.G.VIVEKANAND The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 14503 of 2008 ORDER: The petitioner was employed as a Credit-cum- Purchase Assistant in the Girijan Co-operative Corporation Limited, 1st respondent herein. Alleging that he has resorted to certain acts of indiscipline, a charge memo, dated 16.08.2005, was issued. Thereafter, a domestic enquiry was conducted and through order, dated 24.06.2006, the respondents imposed the punishment of compulsory retirement against the petitioner. The same is challenged in this writ petition. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondents. Several grounds are urged by the petitioner, in his challenge to the impugned order. It is pleaded that the very continuance of the disciplinary proceedings, dated 31.12.2005, on which date, the petitioner attained the age of superannuation, is untenable in law. Exception is taken to the content of the charges as well as the manner, in which the enquiry was conducted. This Court would have certainly examined the contention advanced on behalf of the petitioner, but for the fact that he had an effective alternative remedy, by way of appeal before the Board of 1st respondent-Corporation. The appellate authority would be in a better position to examine the record and grant relief, if it is satisfied on facts. The period of limitation for preferring the appeal expired, on account of the fact that the petitioner has been pursuing his remedies on different fronts. Hence, the writ petition is disposed of, leaving it open to the petitioner to prefer an appeal before the Board of 1st respondent-Corporation; and in case, it is presented within a period of two (2) weeks from today, the same shall be entertained without raising any objection as to limitation. The appellate authority shall also endeavour to dispose of the appeal, as expeditiously as possible. There shall be no order as to costs. _________ 10.07.2008 JSU ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{KURR} THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 14503 of 2008 Date: 10.07.2008 JSU