IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 5608 of 2008 Between: A. Ramachandra Reddy, S/o. Ram Reddy, Hayathnagar Depot, Ranga Reddy District, (under orders of removal from service) R/o. Plot No. 39, H.No. 4-9-609, VNC 358, Vinaynagar Colony, Near Community Hall, Road No. 18, Hayathnagar, Hyderabad. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Andhra Pradesh State Road Tranport Corporation, Rep by its Vice Chairman and Managing Director, Musheerabad, Hyderabad. 2 The Director, Vigilance and Security, A.P.S.R.T.C. Musheerabad, Hyderabad. 3 The Regional Manager, A.P.S.R.T.C. Hyderabad City Region, J.B.S. Picket, Secunderbad. 4 The Depot Manager, A.P.S.R.T.C. Hayathanagar , RangaReddy District. 5 The Regional Transport Officer, East Zone, Government of A.P Musheerabagh, Hyderabad. 6 The Regional Transport Officer, Govertment of Maharastra, Aurangabad, Maharastra state. .....RESPONDENTS 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 issue a writ, order or direction more in the nature of cetiorari calling for the records relating to the impugned Proc No. P1/114(3)/04-HYT, dated 7-10-2005 issued by the Depot Manager, Hayathnagar Depot and the consequential orders in Appeal in proc. No. Steno /19 (104) 2005-DVM/HD dated 30-1-2006 issued by the Divisional Manager, Hyderabad Division and the orders in Revision in proc.NO PA/20 (219)/2006 -HCR,dated 22-11-2006 issued by the Regional Manager (HCR),APSRTC, JBS, Picket, Secunderabad and quash the same and consequently hold that the petitioner is entitled to continue in service with all consequential benefits. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.P.NARASIMHA Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR TRANSPORT The Court made the following : ORDER: The petitioner was employed as Driver in the APSRTC on 28.03.1988. Disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him on 20.11.2003, alleging that he produced a fabricated driving licence and that he concealed the factum of his earlier appointment and dismissal. The petitioner submitted his explanation and departmental enquiry was conducted. Through order, dated 07.10.2005, the 4th respondent removed the petitioner from service. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner availed the remedies of appeal and review, but unsuccessfully. The order of removal is challenged in this Writ Petition. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. The petitioner was removed from service, after he was issued a charge sheet and after the departmental enquiry was conducted. Therefore, no procedural irregularity, warranting interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, can be said to have taken place. If the petitioner intends to canvass the correctness of the order of removal, on merits, the remedy of raising an industrial dispute before the Labour Court, is available to the petitioner, under Section 2-A(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act. Hence, the Writ Petition is dismissed, leaving it open to the petitioner to avail the remedy of raising an industrial dispute before the Labour Court. There shall be no order as to costs. ____________________ Dt.17.03.2008 L.NARASIMHA REDDY, J GJ To 1 The Vice Chairman and Managing Director, Andhra Pradesh State Road Tranport Corporation, Musheerabad, Hyderabad. 2 The Director, Vigilance and Security, A.P.S.R.T.C. Musheerabad, Hyderabad. 3 The Regional Manager, A.P.S.R.T.C. Hyderabad City Region, J.B.S. Picket, Secunderbad. 4 The Depot Manager, A.P.S.R.T.C. Hayathanagar , RangaReddy District. 5 The Regional Transport Officer, East Zone, Government of A.P Musheerabagh, Hyderabad. 6 The Regional Transport Officer, Govertment of Maharastra, Aurangabad, Maharastra state. 7.2CCs to the Government Pleader for Transport. 8.2CD copies