IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No : 19029 of 2000 BETWEEN: G.B.Raju, S/o.Satyanarayana Raju, R/o.APSRTC Quarters, Gajuwaja, Visakhapatnam. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The A.P.S.R.T.C, Rep. by its Regional Manager, Visakhapatnam Region, Visakhapatnam. 2 The A.P.S.R.T.C. Rep. by its Depot Manager, Visakhapatnam Steel City Depot, Koormannapalem, Visakhapatnam. .....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 an order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 2nd Respondent herein in proposing to impose harsh punishment of removal from service vide Proc.No.01/474(2)/2000-VSCD,VSC Depot dt.19-9-2000 and the Removal order in Proc.No.01/474(2)/2000-VSCD, dt.9-10-2000 on the allegation of missing of bus tickets in the tray box inspite of recovering the loss of Rs.2370/- from my salary as illegal, unjust and arbitrary, contrary to clause (V) of Reg.8 of APSRTC conduct Regulation 1963, and contrary to well established Principles of law and as such liable to be set aside in the interest of justice, and fair play in action and to pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner : MR.S.M.SUBHAN Counsel for the Respondents: MR.K.MADHAVA REDDY The Court made the following : ORDER : In this writ petition, the petitioner, who was working as a Driver in the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, has questioned the show cause notice dated 19th September 2000 issued in Proceedings No.01/474(2)/2000-VSCD, VSC Depot, proposing to remove the petitioner from service on the basis of proven misconduct in the inquiry conducted. 2. When the matter is taken up, it is represented by the learned counsel for petitioner that the sole petitioner has died and that he has got no further instructions in the matter. 3. In view of the above development in the matter, the writ petition is dismissed as abated. No order as to costs. ______________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY, J 25th November 2008 ajr