IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 6024 of 2008 Between: N. Sathaiah, s/o. N. Bagaiah, R/o. H.No. LIG-71, A.P.H.B., Medak, Medak District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Depot Manager, APSRTC, Narayankhed Depot, Naraayankhed, Medak District. 2 The Assistant Manager, APSRTC, O/o. Regional Office, Sangareddy, Medak 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 writ or order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 1st respondent in passing removal order vide Proceedings No. 02/95(20)/07-DM:NKd, dt. 08-1-2008 based on the Enquiry report of the 2nd respondent which is submitted without providing relevant documents inspite of request made on 02-11-2007 as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Article of 14 and 16 of the constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents to re-instate the petitioner into service and to conduct Re-enquiry in the Charge Sheet No. 02/95(20)/07-DM:NKD, dt. 23- 8-2007. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.J.M.NAIDU Counsel for the Respondents:SMT.B.G.UMA DEVI (SC for APSRTC) The Court made the following : ORDER: The petitioner is employed as a Driver in Narayankhed Depot of APSRTC. On 14.08.2007, when he was conducting service from Srisailam to Narayankhed, a check took place at stage No.41. On finding that certain irregularities as to issuance of ticket has taken place, the first respondent issued a charge sheet, dated 23.08.2007. After conducting the departmental enquiry, the first respondent passed an order, dated 08.01.2008, directing removal of the petitioner from service. The same is challenged in this writ petition. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. Several grounds have been urged on behalf of the petitioner. It is pleaded that, if one takes the entry in the statistical report into account, no irregularity would be evident, and that the charge is framed on whimsical grounds. This Court would have examined the contentions urged on behalf of the petitioner, but for the fact that there is an effective alternative remedy by way of appeal to the Divisional Manager and review to the Revisional Manager. Further, even if he fails in the departmental remedies, he can approach the Labour Court under Section 2-A(ii) of the Industrial Disputes Act,1947. Therefore, the Writ Petition is dismissed, leaving it open to the petitioner to avail the remedy of appeal. It is directed that if the appeal is presented by the petitioner within 15 days from today, it shall be treated as having been presented within a period of limitation. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY, J Dated:24.03.2008 sj ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1.2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{RLD}