IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH WRIT PETITION NO : 20891 of 2004 Between: G.L.S. Madan Mohan Rao, S/o. Late G.V.N. Rao, Venkateswara Appartments, Opp: Balaji Function Hall, Venkateshwara Colony, Malkajgiri, Hyderabad. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The A.P. Social Welfare Residential Educational Ins- titutions Society, rep. by its Secretary, Telugu Sankshema Bhavan, Masab Tank, Hyderabad. 2 The Principal, A.P.S.W.R.S. Jr. College, Rajapet, Nalgonda District. .....RESPONDENTS 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 Issue writ or order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the first Respondent in terminating the service of the petitioner without conducting enquiry on the ground of alleged misconduct vide proceedings Rc.No.2/VI/1/4119/90, dt. 9.1.2004 is illegal, arbitrary and violative of Article 14, 14 and 21 of Constitution of India and consequently direct the Respondents to re-instate the petitioner into the service with all monitery benefits including seniority, regularisation, promotion etc pass. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.J.M.NAIDU Counsel for the Respondent No.: MR.VIJAYA BHASKAR MOOLA The Court made the following : ORDER: This writ petition has been filed seeking Writ of Mandamus to declare the action of the first respondent in terminating the services of the petitioner without conducting any enquiry on the ground of alleged misconduct vide Proceedings in Rc.No.Z/VI-1/411/98 dated 09-01-2004 as illegal arbitrary and violative of Article 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently to direct the respondents to reinstate the petitioner into service with all monitory benefits including seniority, regularization, promotion and etc., The case of the petitioner is that he was appointed as a trained graduate teacher in the respondents’ organization. He submitted that on a false complaint made by the second respondent to the first respondent without conducting any enquiry and without giving any reasonable opportunity to defend his case, his services were terminated on the ground of misconduct. He further submitted that after filing this writ petition he also filed an appeal before the Minister for Social Welfare, Government of A.P., on 01-06-2005 and the same is pending. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case it is palpable from the record that the petitioner preferred an appeal before the appellate authority and the same is pending. In view of the same, I am of the considered opinion that when there is an appeal is pending before the appellate authority, the validity of the impugned order cannot be decided and the petitioner has come to this Court without availing alternative remedy of appeal. In view of the same, this petition can be disposed of as premature. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of as premature directing the second respondent, Government, to dispose of the appeal said to have been filed by the petitioner on 01-06-2005. However, the petitioner is always at liberty to file an appeal before the appropriate authority. There shall be no order as to costs. _________________________ JUSTICE G. CHANDRAIAH Date: 10-06-2008 LSK