WPSS No. 350 of 2008 Hon’ble Prafulla C. Pant J. Heard Sri Gopal Narain, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri V.K. Bisht, Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri Rajeev Bisht, learned counsel for the respondents. By means of this writ petition the petitioner has sought writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 05.02.2008, passed by respondent, whereby a punishment has been awarded to the petitioner after departmental inquiry. It appears that disciplinary authority in the departmental inquiry earlier removed the petitioner from service vide order dated 12.10.2004. Said order appears to have been challenged by the petitioner in Writ petition No. 604 of 2006 (S/S), which was decided by this Court on 24.05.2006. The respondents filed Civil Appeal No. 1249 of 2007, before the apex court and the same was disposed of vide order dated 9th March 2007, whereby the matter was remitted back to the disciplinary authority to hear the workman and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. The order passed by High Court was set aside by the apex court. The disciplinary authority was directed to hear the delinquent and decide the matter in accordance with law. Present impugned order dated 05.02.2008 appears to have been passed in pursuance to said order. Now after hearing the petitioner respondents have awarded punishment of stoppage of four annual increments. Apart from that the balance of salary except the subsistence allowance is also held up. It is further directed that on reinstatement petition will have to serve for four years in rural areas. Learned counsel for the respondents drew attention of this Court to Rule 69 of U.P. Road Transport, Corporation Employees Service Regulations, 1981, which is applicable to the petitioner and it is contended that a departmental remedy is available to him to file an appeal before the next higher authority within a period of three months. Since alternative and efficacious remedy is available to the petitioner, this Court is not inclined to interfere under writ jurisdiction. Therefore, this writ petition is dismissed at this stage with the observation that the petitioner, if he so likes, may seek the remedy available to him under the rules applicable to him. (Stay Application No. 2771 of 2008 also stands dismissed). (P.C.P.,J.) 14.05.2008 NS