THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO WRIT PETITION No. 17138 of 2010 O R D E R: Heard Sri P. Sridhar Rao, learned counsel for the writ petitioner and Sri K. Satyanarayana Murthy, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent Corporation. This Writ Petition is directed against a show cause notice issued on 01.07.2010 by the Depot Manager, APSRTC, Eluru proposing to impose the punishment of removal from service on the writ petitioner. The writ petitioner, while working as a Booking Clerk, at Eluru Depot of the APSRTC, is alleged to have committed an irregularity of allowing three passengers to board a non-stop bus service plying between Eluru and Vijayawada. There appears to be some factual dispute in that regard. While the petitioner asserts that he has not allowed any such unauthorized passengers to travel, by the bus service, the driver, who conducted the bus service in question, appears to have stated something different. According to the learned counsel for the writ petitioner, the findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer are absolutely contrary to the facts, which have been led and demonstrated by the petitioner before the Enquiry Officer. The learned counsel, therefore, submits that the findings are perverse and no reasonable body of men could have arrived at that. It is those findings, which are made the basis for the impugned show cause notice. Therefore, the learned counsel submits that the show cause notice is a fatal exercise. I am afraid, that at this stage, it is not open to this Court to appreciate the facts or contra facts on record. It is open to the writ petitioner to draw out a detailed explanation pointing out as to how the findings arrived at by the Enquiry Officer are unsustainable or perverse. Those facts will have to be appreciated by the disciplinary authority. Thereafter only, appropriate conclusion will have to be drawn. Any such conclusion of the disciplinary authority is also liable to be subjected to scrutiny by the appellate as well as the revisional authorities. Therefore, perversity of findings can always be checked by the in-house procedures already available and thereafter, the remedy of judicial review would any way be available. Therefore, I am reluctant to entertain this Writ Petition, as it is premature. The learned counsel for the writ petitioner submits that the writ petitioner may be accorded 15 days’ time to draw up a detailed representation and submit the same for consideration by the Depot Manager, Eluru. This request appears to be a reasonable one. The writ petitioner is accorded time to draw up and file a detailed representation to the impugned show cause notice, up to 10.08.2010. If the writ petitioner submits any such representation, I am sure the same will be dealt with appropriately and in accordance with law by the disciplinary authority. The Writ Petition is therefore, dismissed, at the stage of admission. No costs. ---------------------------------- (NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO, J) 26th July 2010 ksld