HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU WRIT PETITION No.11013 of 2011 Date: April 20, 2011 Between: S.Saleem Basha … Petitioner And The Deputy Chief Traffic Manager and another … Respondents This Court made the following: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU WRIT PETITION No.11013 of 2011 ORDER: This writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking to issue a writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in issuing the impugned order No.P2/1(4)/11-AND, dated 25.03.2011, removing the petitioner from service without giving any opportunity by conducting an enquiry and set aside the same and consequently direct the respondents to reinstate the petitioner into service with continuity of service with all attendant benefits by considering the petitioner appeal. 2. The case of the petitioner is that his father died in the year 1977 while discharging his duties as Conductor at Atmakur Depot. The respondents after considering his family back ground, appointed the petitioner as a Cleaner in the year 1979, on compassionate grounds at Adoni Depot. Due to his hard work and sincerity he was promoted as DC Electrical, and further promoted as a leading hand on 03.11.2010, by the Selection Committee along with other members. While the matter stood thus, respondent No.2 issued a charge sheet on 07.02.2011, with the following charge. “For having absented to your duties un-authorizedly from 23.01.2011 onwards without obtaining any prior permission or sanction of leave, which constitutes misconduct under Regulation 28 (xxvii) of APSRTC Employees (conduct) Regulations, 1963”. His further case is that on 23.01.2011, he went to his native place Devinur as he got off and where he fell sick and applied for sick leave from time to time and the same was acknowledged by the respondents. Knowing fully well about his sick leave, respondent No.2 without serving charge sheet or without conducting any enquiry, removed the petitioner from service on 25.03.2011. Aggrieved by the same, he filed appeal before respondent No.1 on 31.03.2011, and the same is pending. Hence, the writ petition. 3. The grievance of the petitioner is that he filed an appeal on 31.03.2011 before respondent No.1, and the same has not been disposed of. 4. The petitioner cannot be permitted to prosecute two parallel proceedings in respect of the same cause of action. Where a statute or regulation creates a right of appeal and also prescribes the remedy or procedure for the enforcement of that right resort must be had to the said statutory remedy before invoking extraordinary writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 5. In view of the above, the Writ Petition is disposed of directing the petitioner to prosecute the appeal, which was filed by him and respondent No.1 is directed to dispose of the appeal in accordance with law within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________ K.C. BHANU, J April 20, 2011. YVL