IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTIETH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 16468 of 2008 Between: T.Rajendra Singh S/o.Late T.Bhavani Singh AP Forest Development Corporation, R.R.Division, A.C.Guards, Hyderabad ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Vice Chairman and Managing Director, Andhra Pradesh Forest Development Corporation Limited, 3rd floor, UNI Building, A.C.Guards Hyderabad 2 The Board of Directors, Andhra Pradesh Forest Development Corporation Limited, 3rd floor, UNI Building, A.C.Guards, Hyderabad rep by its Chairman .....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 particularlyone in the nature of mandamus declaring the punishment orders of the Vice Chairman & Managing Director, AP Forest Development Corporation Limited, In PD/1.6.19/2007-657 (office order No.37/2008) dated 22.2.2008 and also the appellate order bearing Ref.No.PD/1.6.19.2007 3786 (Office order NMo.169/08) dated 11.7.2008 passed by the same authority i.e.Vice Chairman and Managing Director, AP Forest Development Corporation Limited as wholly illegal, arbitrary,violative of Articles, 14,16 and 21 of the Constitution of India apart from being violative of principles of natural justice and also Rules/Regulations of the REspondent -corporation and such otherand further order or orders as this Hon`ble court deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.RAVI KONDAVEETI Counsel for the Respondent No.: MR.P.SREE RAMULU NAIDU The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 16468 of 2008 ORDER: The petitioner was imposed the punishment of reduction to the minimum scale, through orders, dated 22.02.2008, passed by the 1st respondent. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner preferred an appeal to the 2nd respondent. The appeal was rejected on 11.07.2008. The said proceedings are challenged in this writ petition. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. The petitioner had availed the statutory remedy of appeal against the order, dated 22.02.2008. It is no doubt true that the appeal was rejected by the 2nd respondent. However, the petitioner had an alternative remedy by way of revision/review under Regulation 72 of the Service Regulations of the respondents-Corporation. When the same is pointed out, the learned counsel for the petitioner stated that his client is willing to avail the said remedy. Hence, the writ petition is dismissed, leaving it open to the petitioner to avail the remedy under Regulation 72 of the Service Regulations of the respondents-Corporation. As and when such a remedy is availed, the concerned authority shall dispose of the matter within a period of three months from the date of its presentation. There shall be no order as to costs. _________ 20.08.2008 JSU ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{TRK} THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 16468 of 2008 Date: 20.08.2008 JSU