THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH WRIT PETITION No.31915 of 2011 ORDER: Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the second and third respondents. This Writ Petition is ﬁled seeking a mandamus declaring proceedings No.Vig(2)/3960/KRMNR/2007, dated 21.11.2009, issued by the second respondent removing the petitioner from service apart from recovery of Rs.1,65,570/- and also Memo No.Vig(2)/3960/KRMNR/2007, dated 29.10.2010, issued by the Board of Directors conﬁrming the aforesaid proceedings, as illegal and arbitrary and in violation of Articles 14 and 19 of the Constitution of India and set aside the same and consequently, direct the respondents to reinstate the petitioner into service with continuity of service, back wages and all other attendant benefits. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner worked as Assistant Engineer in the Andhra Pradesh State Housing Corporation Limited at Karimnagar. Pursuant to the disciplinary proceedings initiated against him, he was placed under suspension by proceedings, dated 03.07.2007 and the articles of charges have been framed against him on 26.07.2008, pursuant to which an enquiry was conducted. The enquiry oﬃcer submitted his report on 15.01.2009. Basing on the said enquiry report, the second respondent issued proceedings No.Vig(2)/3960/KRMNR/2007, dated 21.11.2009, imposing on the petitioner the punishment of removal from service apart from recovery of Rs.1,65,570/- with 12% interest as per clause (ix) under Rule 9 of the A.P.C.S.(CC&A) Rules, 1991 read with APSHCL (CC&A) Rules, 1997. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner preferred appeal before the Board of Andhra Pradesh State Housing Corporation Limited. The Board rejected the said appeal vide Memo, dated 29.10.2010. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner ﬁled further appeal before the ﬁrst respondent – Government, on 10.11.2010 under Clause (v) of Sub-Rule (1) of Rule 34 of the APCS (CC&A) Rules, 1991 read with Clause (ii) of Sub-Rule (1) of Rule 33 ibid within the limitation stipulated under Rule 35 of the said Rules and the said appeal is pending. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that both the authorities without following due process of law, have concluded the proceedings against the petitioner and therefore, both the impugned proceedings are liable to be set aside on the ground of violation of principles of natural justice. It is not in dispute that aggrieved by Memo, dated 29.10.2010 issued by the Board of Directors, the petitioner ﬁled appeal before the ﬁrst respondent on 10.11.2010 and the same is pending consideration. Therefore, as the validity of impugned proceedings is pending consideration before the ﬁrst respondent – Government, adjudicating the matter at this stage would amount to allowing the petitioner to proceed with parallel proceedings, which is not proper. In that view of the matter, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, without going into the merits of the case, the Writ Petition is disposed of with the direction to the ﬁrst respondent to pass appropriate orders, if not already passed, on the appeal alleged to have been ﬁled by the petitioner on 10.11.2010, in accordance with law, within a period of two (2) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No order as to costs. ____________________ G.CHANDRAIAH, J 3rd DECEMBER, 2011. Note:issue c.c. in three (3) days. kvni