IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE FIFTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.16887 of 2008 Between: M.A. Saleem S/o. M.A.Kareem, Conductor, Banswada Depot, A.P. State Road Transport Corporation, Nizamabad. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 A.P.S.R.T.C., Rep. by its Chairman & Managing Director, Bus Bhavan, Musheerabad, Hyderabad. 2 The Depot Manager, A.P.S.R.T.C., Banswada, Nizamabad District. 3 Sri Ramana, AM (T), A.P.S.R.T.C., Banswada, Nizamabad. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Aﬃdavit ﬁled herein the High Court may be pleased to issue a writ or order or direction, especially one in the nature of writ of Mandamus: i) declaring the impugned proceeding No. E1/1(2)/2008-BSWD dt. 9-7-2008 issued by the 2nd respondent as illegal, arbitrary and set aside the same and ii) consequently direct the respondents to continue the petitioner in service till the date of his superannuation i.e., upto 31.12.2008 or consequently direct the respondents to accept his resignation. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.K.VASUDEVA REDDY Counsel for the Respondents: SMT.B.G.UMA DEVI, S.C. The Court made the following: THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.16887 of 2008 ORDER: The petitioner is working as a Conductor in Banswada Depot of A.P. State Road Transport Corporation, Nizamabad District. He was issued with a charge sheet dated 27.03.2008 by the 2nd respondent – Depot Manager, Banswada Depot, alleging that he was unauthorisedly absent for duties from 20.06.2007 to 28.03.2008 without prior permission or sanction of leave. After the petitioner submitted his explanation, departmental enquiry was conducted and an ex parte report was submitted by the enquiry oﬃcer on 05.07.2008. Based on the same, the 2nd respondent issued a show cause notice dated 09.07.2008 proposing the punishment of removal from service. Challenging the same, this writ petition has been filed. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. The question of this Court interfering with the show cause notice arises only when the same is issued by the authority not vested with such power. The petitioner does not make such an allegation. His grievance appears to be mostly as regards the method of conducting the departmental enquiry. If the petitioner has any objection in this regard, he has to plead the same in his explanation to the show cause notice. This Court is not inclined to interfere with the show cause notice. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed leaving it open to the petitioner to submit his explanation to the impugned show cause notice, within a period of ten days from today, if not already submitted. No order as to costs. ________________________ JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY 5th August, 2008. Note:- Issue CC in three days. BO IBL