THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA W.P. No. 26903 of 2008 O r d e r: The petitioner is a Driver with the respondents-Corporation. He filed the present writ petition impugning the order dated 13.11.2008, passed by respondent No.1, namely the Depot Manager, Tadepalligudem, removing the petitioner from service, as being illegal and arbitrary. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner could not attend the office during the period from 18.05.2007 to 15.06.2007 because he suffered chest pain, and in fact, the petitioner reported about this to the Deputy Controller and reported sickness. Because of the said absence, respondent No.1 issued charge sheet, to which the petitioner submitted his explanation on 16.06.2007, and also joined duty on the said day. However, it is the case of the petitioner that respondent No.1 without intimating the appointment of Enquiry Officer and without issuing any notice of enquiry and without providing any opportunity to put forth his case by placing necessary material either before the Enquiry Officer or the disciplinary authority, all of a sudden issued notice dated 10.01.2008 to show cause as to why he should not be removed from service, and even though the petitioner submitted his explanation, respondent No.1 without considering the same, has issued the impugned order dated 13.11.2008, removing him from service. He submitted that since the impugned order passed by respondent No.1, removing the petitioner from service, is based on no enquiry and without affording opportunity to put forth his case, he contends that the petitioner is entitled to maintain the writ petition instead of availing the remedy of appeal available to him against the impugned order. On the other hand, the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents-Corporation submitted that the impugned order passed by respondent No.1, removing the petitioner from service, was preceded by an enquiry and after providing reasonable opportunity to the petitioner at every stage, and therefore, the petitioner cannot complain that no enquiry was conducted. He however, submitted that the petitioner has an effective alternative remedy by way of appeal against the impugned order passed by respondent No.1, and the petitioner without availing the said remedy, has filed the present writ petition, which is not maintainable, and prayed that the writ petition be dismissed. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents-Corporation. Even though the petitioner contends that no enquiry whatsoever was conducted before he was removed from service by reason of the order passed by respondent No.1, impugned in the writ petition, the fact remains, a reading of the impugned order indicates that the petitioner was issued charge sheet, to which he submitted explanation, and thereafter, enquiry was conducted and the enquiry officer submitted his report, and thereafter, based on the enquiry report, he was issued notice of removal, to which also he submitted his explanation. Be that as it may, as against the impugned order, it is stated by the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents-APSRTC that the petitioner has a remedy of appeal under Regulation 22 of the APSRTC Employees (Conduct) Regulations, 1963, and in fact, the impugned order also speaks about the availability of remedy of appeal to the petitioner to the Deputy Chief Traffic Manager, Eluru. Admittedly, the petitioner without availing the said remedy of appeal has directly approached this Court. The petitioner, except contending that the impugned order was not preceded by any enquiry and without notices to him, has not stated any reason as to how he is entitled to maintain the writ petition despite availability of alternative remedy and how the remedy of appeal available to him against the impugned order, is not effective. The law is well settled that when there exists statutory remedy writ petition is normally not entertained, unless it is shown that there has been a breach of principles of natural justice or procedure required for the decision has not been adopted, enforcement of/complains of infringement of fundamental rights are sought, the proceedings taken or orders passed are wholly without jurisdiction or ultra vires or the vires of the Act is challenged or where the proceedings itself are an abuse of process of law or where there is no remedy against the order passed by a public authority. The petitioner having not pointed out any of the said pre-conditions for invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court against the impugned order, is not entitled to maintain the writ petition, and more so he has got an effective and efficacious alternative remedy of appeal against the impugned order under Regulation 22 of the Regulations, referred to above. Hence, I deem it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition with the following directions: The petitioner is at liberty to avail the remedy of appeal available to him against the impugned order before the Deputy Chief Traffic Manager, Eluru, as indicated in the impugned order, by taking the pleas which he sought to take in the writ petition, within a period of two months from today. If any such appeal is filed, the appellate authority shall consider and dispose of the appeal and pass appropriate thereon on its own merits without being influenced by any of the observations made either in the impugned order or by this Court in this order. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs. ________________ N.V. RAMANA, J. Date: 17th December, 2008. KSR