IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE FIFTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO.16855 of 2008 Between: Gudapati Subba Rao, S/o. Venkateswar Rao, R/o. H.No.SF-3, Seethapuram Colony, Raghava Enclave. ...PETITIONER AND 1 The Divisional Manager (Rural), A.P.State Road Transport Corporation, Vijayawada, Krishna District. 2 The Dy. Chief Traffic Manager, A.P.State Road Transport Corporation, Vijayawada, Krishna District. 3 The Regional Manager, A.P.State Road Transport Corporation, Vijayawada, Krishna District. ...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 particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the removal order passed by the 2nd respondent in No.03/114(1) 2007-Dy. CTM dated 27-8-2007 consequently conﬁrmed by the 3rd respondent in appeal No.PA/19 (103) 2007-RM (K), dated 6-6-2008, as being illegal, arbitrary, and violative of principles of natural justice, besides Articles 14 and 21 of the constitution of India consequently set aside the removal order passed by the 2nd respondent in No.03/114(1) 2007-Dy. CTM dated 27-8-2007 consequential conﬁrmation order passed by the 3rd respondent in appeal No.PA/19 (103) 2007-RM (K), dated 6-6- 2008. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.V.BRAHMAIAH CHOWDARY Counsel for the Respondents: C.PRAKASH REDDY (SC FOR APSRTC) The Court made the following: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO.16855 of 2008 ORDER: The petitioner was working as TTI in the Vijayawada region of APSRTC. A charge sheet was issued to him alleging that he has forged the letters of allotment of ATB counters at the bus station of Nampally and Kukatpally Housing Board Colony and bus pass counter at Kukatpally Housing Board by collecting a sum of Rs.90,500/- (Rupees ninety thousand ﬁve hundred only). Domestic enquiry was conducted and on the basis of the report ﬁled by the Enquiry Oﬃcer, the second respondent passed an order dated 27.08.2007 removing the petitioner from service. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the third respondent. The appeal was also rejected vide order dated 06.06.2008. The same is challenged in this Writ Petition. Heard Sri V.Brahmaiah Chowdary, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri C.Prakash Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. The petitioner had urged several contentions before this Court while assailing the order of removal and rejection of appeal. However, this Court is not inclined to entertain the same at this stage. The petitioner has an alternative remedy of review under the Service Regulations and under Section 2-A (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. If the petitioner is so advised, he can straight away raise an industrial dispute before the Labour Court also. The Labour Court would be in a better position to appreciate the matter in different angles. The Writ Petition is disposed of, leaving it open to the petitioner to work out his remedies in accordance with law. _____________________ (L.NARASIMHA REDDY, J) 5th August 2008 RRB