IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE THIRD DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No. 14022 of 2008 Between: Laxman S/o. Late Eeerappa, Hindu R/o. Plot No. 1194, Siddiqnagar, Gachibowli Hyderabad, A.P. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Depot Manager, APSRTC, Hyderabad Central University, (HCU) Hyderabad, A.P. 2 The Divisional Manager, APSRTC, Charminar Division, Koti, Hyderabad. .....RESPONDENS 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 an appropriate writ order or direction more in the nature of Writ of mandamus declaring the action of the 1st Respondent in issuing removal order No. P2/1(128)/2006 HCU dt. 13-5-2008 on the report of ADC (BOoking) dt. 13-5-2008 and not accepting the APSRTC Sick Certificate No. 845645 dt. 13-5-2008 issued by Tarnaka Hospital Doctors treating as Absent without conducting any inquiry is as illegal, unjust contrary to law and violation of Principles of Natural Justice by setting aside the Order and granting all consequential benefits. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.MOHD.GHOUSEUDDIN Counsel for the Respondents: K.MADHAVA REDDY(SC FOR APSRTC) The Court made the following ORDER: The petitioner was employed as a Driver in Hyderabad Central University Depot of A.P.S.R.T.C., the first respondent herein. Disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the petitioner alleging that he remained unauthorisedly absent at different spells of time. After conducting ex parte departmental enquiry, the first respondent passed an order, dated 13.05.2008, directing removal of the petitioner from service. The same is challenged in this writ petition. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. Though the learned counsel for the petitioner had urged several contentions, touching on the merits of the matter, this Court is not inclined to entertain the writ petition. The reason is that the petitioner has an effective alternative remedy by way of appeal to the second respondent. It is stated that an appeal has since been presented through the first respondent. The petitioner complains that the first respondent did not forward the appeal so far. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the writ petition is disposed of, directing the first respondent to forward the appeal presented by the petitioner to the second respondent forthwith and the latter, in turn, shall dispose of the same, within a period of two (2) months from the date of receipt of the record. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY, J Dt:03.07.2008 kdl ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{VSMI}