IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE SECOND DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 4083 of 2009 Between: V C Krishnaiah Atmakur, Nellore District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 A.P.S.R.T.C. Represented by Vice Chairman & Managing Director, Musheerabad, Hyderabad. 2 The Regional Manager, A.P.S.R.T.C. Nellore Region, Nellore District. 3 The Depot Manager, A.P.S.R.T.C. Atmakur (N) Depot, Nellore District. .....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 directions more in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring Final order for recovery No.E1/227(B)-ATK(N) dated 29.01.2009 passed by 3rd respondent herein in recovering an amount of Rs.7,374-00 from the petitioner salary as illegal and arbitrary and set aside the same with all consequential benefits and pass. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.P.GOVINDA RAJULU Counsel for the Respondent No.: MR.C.PRAKASH REDDY(SC FOR APSRTC) The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.4083 of 2009 ORDER: The petitioner has assailed the order of recovery passed by the Depot Manager, APSRTC, Atmakur- the third respondent. 2. When the writ petition came up for admission, Sri C. Prakash Reddy, learned standing counsel for APSRTC takes notices on behalf of respondents 1 to 3. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that an amount of Rs.7,374/- is ordered to be recovered from the petitioner in twelve equal monthly instalments without there being any regular departmental enquiry. 4. Learned standing counsel for the respondent-corporation submits that no regular departmental enquiry is contemplated since the amount ordered to be recovered from the petitioner is towards the damage caused to the corporation. 5. The fact that the petitioner has remedy of appeal against the order impugned in the writ petition is not disputed by the learned counsel for the petitioner. 6. In that view of the matter, the petitioner has to avail the remedy as provided under Regulation 22 of APSRTC CC & A Regulations 1967. 7. With the above observation, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs. __________________________ B.SESHASAYANA REDDY,J 02.03.2009 Stp ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1) 2 CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{KURR}