THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No. 14881 OF 2008 O R D E R: The petitioner is working as a Conductor in the Suryapet Depot of APSRTC. In the year 2006, he worked in the Miryalaguda Depot. The Elections to the Grampanchayat were held on 29.7.2006. The petitioner submitted his nomination for the post of Sarpanch of Repala village. Though he is said to have submitted his resignation on 18.7.2006, the fact remains that it was not accepted. The 2nd respondent issued a charge sheet dated 22.9.2006, alleging that the petitioner violated Service Regulations, by contesting in the elections, even while in service. The petitioner claims to have submitted explanation to the same. The 2nd respondent appointed an enquiry officer, and a report dated 30.11.2006 was submitted, holding that the charge framed against the petitioner is proved. Taking the same into account, the 2nd respondent passed an order dated 1.7.2008, dismissing the petitioner from service. The same is challenged in this writ petition. Sri V. Narasimha Goud, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the impugned order is patently illegal, inasmuch as the petitioner was not issued any show-cause notice, after the enquiry officer submitted his report. He made submissions touching on merits also. Smt. B.G.Uma Devi, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents, raised objection as to the maintainability of the writ petition, on the ground that an alternative remedy by way of appeal, is available to the petitioner. She contends that the points urged by the petitioner were taken into account, before the impugned order was passed. The charge against the petitioner is that he contested in the Grampanchayat elections, even while in service. Not being satisfied with the explanation offered by the petitioner, the 2nd respondent appointed an enquiry officer, and a report was submitted, holding that the charge is proved. The procedure to be followed in matters of this nature is prescribed by the APSRTC (Classification, Control and Appeal) Regulations. Issuance of show- cause notice, conducting of departmental enquiry, and issuance of final show-cause notice, are provided under the Regulations. The relevant of this case is clause 12(13), which reads as under: “The Authority competent to impose the penalty shall then determine what penalty, if any, should be imposed on the employee, and pass appropriate orders on the case. If the penalty proposed to be imposed is one of the penalties specified in item (vii) (viii) and (ix) of Regulation 8, he should be given an opportunity to show cause why the said penalty should not be imposed.” Admittedly, in the instant case, the 2nd respondent did not issue any show-cause notice, after the enquiry officer submitted his report. The correspondence said to have been undertaken by him, with the officials in the Department, is of hardly any help, in this regard. When the impugned order is patently illegal, the petitioner cannot be driven to the appellate authority, particularly, when it is said that he is attaining the age of superannuation on 31.7.2008. For the foregoing reasons, the writ petition is allowed, and the impugned order is set aside. The matter is remanded to the 2nd respondent, for necessary action, commencing from the issuance of show-cause notice, as contemplated under Regulation 12 (13). There shall be no order as to costs. ________________ 15th July 2008 PAN