IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO WRIT PETITIONo.14762 of 2009 Between: 1 A.Rajaiah, S/o. Pullaiah, R/o. 6/112, Rajampet, Adifabad, Adilabad District. 2 M.Jalapathi, S/o.Komaraiah, R/o. 12-134, Gouthami nagar, Mancherial, Adilabad district. ..... PETITIONER(S) AND 1 APSRTC Rep by its Regional Manager, karimnagar Region, Karimnagar, Karimnagar District. 2 APSRTC, Rep by its Depot Managr, Mancherial Bus Depot, Mancherial, Adilabad District. 3 The Circle Inspector, Vigilance Officer, RTC Bus Stand, Karimnagar. .....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 isue an order, direction or writ more particulary one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in removing the petitionrs from their services in his proceedings No.01/178(2)/08-MNCL, dated 10.7.2009 issued to the petitioners as the same is illegl, arbitrary, and unjust and consequently set aside the same and direct the respondents to reinstte the petitioners into service with continuity of service, attendant benefits and back wages Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.G.RAVI MOHAN Counsel for the Respondent No.: SMT.P.RAJANI REDDY The Court made the following : HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO WRIT PETITION No.14762 of 2009 ORDER: Sri G. Ravi Mohan, learned counsel for the petitioners made elaborate submissions pointing out that the Enquiry Officer has drawn findings contrary to the material, only because the Vigilance Inspectors have been involved in the alleged act of detecting the pilferage said to have been attempted by the petitioners, and therefore, he could not arrive at a very objective conclusion. Similarly, the disciplinary authority also subscribes to the same irrational reasoning. The learned counsel for the petitioners would strenuously urge that the Vigilance Inspectors have behaved so unreasonably and highhandedly that they have in fact assaulted the petitioners and the act of their assaulting the petitioners has been video-graphed and that has also been demonstrated before the Enquiry Officer, but still an adverse finding has been drawn against the writ petitioners only because of lack of fearlessness and impartiality on the part of the disciplinary authority. Learned counsel for the petitioners, when he has been pointed out that under Regulation 22 of the A.P.S.R.T.C. Employees C.C.A. Regulations, an appeal would lie to the appellate authority, who could have considered these factual aspects of the matter and who could have in fact appreciated and decided the issue in very quick time, and normally when an effective alternative remedy is available, this court will be very slow to exercise its discretion for entertaining a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, submits that the writ petitioners would prefer an exhaustive appeal to the appellate authority. But, however, he pleads that the appellate authority may be directed to pass a reasoned order within a maximum period of three months from the said date of appeal. The request made by the learned counsel appears to be very reasonable. If the writ petitioners prefer a detailed appeal, the appellate authority would necessarily deal with the same on its merits and pass appropriate orders thereon within three moths from the date of receipt of such an appeal. It would be open to the writ petitioners to seek personal hearing before the appellate authority and I consider it appropriate to direct the appellate authority to accord such a personal hearing to the petitioners as they will be able to clearly demonstrate by playing the C.D. wherein the act of assault made against them by the Vigilance Inspectors and their high-handed behaviour in securing signatures of the writ petitioners on blank papers can easily be demonstrated. The writ petition is therefore, disposed of at the admission stage with the consent of the learned standing counsel for the Corporation Smt.P. Rajani Reddy. ________________________________ NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO, J 23rd July, 2009 pn HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO WRIT PETITION No.14762 of 2009 23rd July, 2009