IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE FIRST DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 16668 of 2008 Between: Vintha Seshi Reddy @ Subba Reddy E.353110, A.P.S.R.T.C Eluru Depot Eluru, W.G District ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Depot Manager A.P.S.R.T.C Eluru Depot Eluru W.G District 2 The Regional Manager A.P.S.R.T.C W.G District Region Eluru 3 Assistant Manager(Profit) Cum Enquiry Officer Regional Manager's Office A.P.S.R.T.C Eluru 4 Sri M.R.G.Rao S/o.Father's name not Known IT Grade-II Staff No.54749 HES/Tanuku Depot W.G District .....RESPONDENT(S) 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 to issue a writ or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the Proceedings No.02/95(19)/08.ELR- Dt.16-05-2008 of the 1st respondent as illegal arbitary unconstitutional and against to the principles of natural justice and to pass Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.B.CHINNAPA REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.: C.PRAKASH REDDY(SC FOR APSRTC) The Court made the following : The petitioner was employed as a Conductor in Eluru Depot of A.P.S.R.T.C. He retired from service on 31.07.2008. Before his retirement, he was issued a charge sheet, dated 28.01.2008, alleging that on 20.01.2008 when he was conducting a bus on the route from Prathikollalanka to Eluru, he collected fare of Rs.14/- from a passenger, who boarded at Kolletikota, but issued only a luggage ticket of Rs.1/-. The petitioner denied the charge. On the basis of an enquiry report, dated 08.04.2008, the ﬁrst respondent issued a show cause notice proposing the punishment of removal. On a consideration of the explanation submitted by the petitioner, the ﬁrst respondent passed an order, dated 16.05.2008, removing the petitioner from service. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner ﬁled an appeal before the second respondent and the appeal was rejected. The petitioner challenges the order of removal in this writ petition. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. The petitioner had an alternative remedy by way of presenting an industrial dispute before the competent Labour Court under Section 2-A (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The jurisdiction of the Labour Court, in matters of this nature is far wider, in scope. The petitioner states that he has also presented an industrial dispute before the Labour Court, Guntur. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the writ petition is disposed of, leaving it open to the petitioner to pursue his remedy before the Labour Court and the I.D. ﬁled by the petitioner shall be disposed of, as early as possible, and not later than six months from the date of its being numbered. There shall be no order as to costs. ___________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY,J Dt:01.08.2008 kdl