IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE NINETH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 28585 of 2008 Between: P.R. Naidu ..... PETITIONER AND The APSRTC, Rep. by its Managing Director Musheerabad, Hyderabad and four others. .....RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.S.M.SUBHAN Counsel for the Respondents: SMT.W.V.S.RAJESWARI The Court made the following : Form-NIC-OGS/WP{VSMI} HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY W.P.No.28585 of 2008 ORDER: This writ petition is filed for a writ of mandamus to declare the action of the respondents in not allotting duties to the petitioner despite completion of enquiry into two charge sheets dated 05-12- 2007 and 18-04-2008, as illegal and unconstitutional. 2. Sri S.M. Subhan, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that though enquiries into two charges were completed and no orders of punishment were imposed, the petitioner is unduly kept away from his duties as Conductor of A.P. State Road Transport Corporation (for short ‘Corporation). 3. Smt. W.V.S. Rajeswari, learned standing counsel for the Corporation, referred to some of the averments in counter affidavit and submitted that during the pendency of the enquiry to the unauthorized absenteeism, the petitioner was informed to report to duty vide letters dated 22-11-2007 and 13-02-2008 sent through registered post with acknowledgment due and though the said letters were acknowledged, the petitioner did not attend to the duties. It is further averred that one more letter was sent to the petitioner which was returned on 19-04-2008 with the endorsement of refusal, and therefore, show cause notice of removal was issued to the petitioner on 10-04-2008. That apart from exhibiting the said notice in the notice board, it was sent to the petitioner through R.P.A.D. The postal authorities returned the same with an endorsement that the petitioner refused to receive the same. It is further averred that an order of removal was issued on 21-04- 2008. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner disputed the above mentioned averments and pointed out that while the respondents claimed to have passed an order of removal on 21-04-2008, as late as 18-04-2008, i.e. three days before the said order was purportedly passed, a fresh charge sheet was issued to the petitioner and that the alleged order of removal did not refer to this charge sheet. 5. In any view, in the context of the relief claimed by the petitioner in this writ petition, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner cannot be gone into in this writ petition as it falls outside the scope of this writ petition. The validity or otherwise of the order dated 21-04-2008, by which the petitioner has been removed, is required to be adjudicated by the competent forum in the proceedings that may be initiated by the petitioner questioning the said order. 6. The petitioner is, therefore, given liberty to raise all legally sustainable pleas to question order dated 21-04-2008 passed by respondent No.4 before appropriate Forum. Respondent No.4 shall serve a copy of the said order on the petitioner within four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The petitioner is permitted to file an appeal before the appellate authority, which shall entertain and dispose of the same, within a period of eight weeks thereafter. 7. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs. ________________________ 09-04-2009 C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY,J KVR