IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE FIRST DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU WRIT PETITION No.18393 OF 2011 Between: Shaik Mahaboob .....PETITIONER AND The Andhra Pradesh Horticultural University Rep. By its Registrar, Administrative Office Venkataramannagudem, W.G. Dt & another ....RESPONDENTS The Court made the following: THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU Writ Petition No.18393 OF 2011 ORDER: 1 This Writ Petition is filed to declare the action of the second Respondent in issuing the proceedings in Memo No.82/FRI/2008, dated 10.09.2008 as arbitrary and illegal and consequently direct the Respondents to release the amount that has been recovered from him together with interest at 12% p.a. with quarterly rests. 2 Heard both sides. 3 The case of the petitioner is that initially the petitioner was engaged as a casual labourer from 1983 to 1988. On finding that the petitioner had sufficient skill in handling the job, he was declared as a skilled labour from 1988 and he continued as such till 1999. He was eventually regularized as Driver in 1999 and on his first posting, he was asked to report to Krishi Vigyan Kendra, Ananthapur and thereafter he was moved to the Administrative Office at Rajendranagar. The petitioner further submits that he was some times asked to drive a mini tractor, which was parked in the nursery since some green house material was dumped in the garage. After the said material was removed from the garage, the petitioner was asked to take the mini tractor back into the garage, at which point of time, the petitioner noticed theft of battery of the said tractor. The petitioner put the said fact to the notice of the concerned officials. But, the Respondents by an order dated 09.04.2008 conducted a preliminary enquiry and ultimately, without following the procedure of issuing notice, calling for explanation etc., passed the impugned order dated 10.09.2008 and fixed the responsibility on the petitioner and three other watch and ward staff and thus ordered that an amount of Rs.1,000/- be recovered from the pay and allowances of the petitioner while the balance of amount was equally distributed amongst the three watch and ward staff. The petitioner further submits that aggrieved by the impugned proceedings, he preferred an appeal to the first Respondent. But, no action has not been taken on the same. Hence the present Writ Petition. 4 According to the petitioner, aggrieved by the impugned proceedings of the second Respondent he has preferred an appeal before the first respondent with regard to the same cause of action i.e. imposition of punishment against him. In that view of the matter, the petitioner cannot be permitted to prosecute two parallel proceedings in respect of same cause of action. 6 Therefore, the Writ Petition is disposed of directing the first Respondent to pass appropriate orders in the appeal if pending after giving reasonable opportunity to the petitioner within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and thereafter communicate the same to the petitioner. No order as to costs. ___________ K.C. BHANU, J 01.07.2011 Kvsn