Short Note : 1. The petitioner was a Tyre Care Taker employed in the M.P. State Road Transport Corporation at its Morena Depot and held this post till 20-8-75. On 5-4-75, he was detected travelling without a ticket in Bus No. 9295 belonging to the Corporation. On the same day he was produced before the Mobile Court, Gwalior. The petitioner admitted his guilt and was convicted for having committed an offence punishable under section 6 of the M.P. Rajya Sadak Parivahan Seva (Bina Ticket Yatri Ki Rok) Adhiniyam, 1974 and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.10.35, or on default, to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of ten days. 2. The Corporation, by the order dated 20-8-75. accordingly terminated the services of the petitioner under Regulation 109 of the M.P. State Road Transport Corporation Employees Service Regulations, 1964, which reads thus: "109. Notwithstanding the provisions of Regulation 69, the service of an employee, if he has been convicted in a Criminal Court or has been declared insolvent by a competent Court, shall be liable to be terminated without notice." 3. In exercise of the powers conferred by section 45 of the Road Transport Corporation Act, 1950, the M.P. State Road Transport Corporation, with the previous sanction of the State Government, framed the Madhya Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation Employees Conduct Discipline and Appeal Regulation, 1975, which come into force on 5-9-75. 4. The petitioner preferred an appeal before the General Manager, M.P. State Road Transport Corporation on 6-9-75, i.e., after the Regulations had come into force. The appeal was, however, rejected by the General Manager by his order dated 8-1-76. Held: The first submission based upon a decision of their Lordships of the Supreme Court in the Divisional Personnel Officer, Southern Railway and another v. T.S, Challappan, AIR 1975 SC 2216 , is that the failure on the part of the General Manager to deal with the appeal in the manner provided by Regulation 47 vitiates the decision of the General Manager. The contention cannot be accepted for the simple reason that though the language of the Regulation 47 was in terms similar to rule 14 (1) of the Railway Servants (Discipline and Appeal) Rules (1968), the decision of their Lordships in Divisional Personnel Officer, Southern 'Railway and another Vs. The contention cannot be accepted for the simple reason that though the language of the Regulation 47 was in terms similar to rule 14 (1) of the Railway Servants (Discipline and Appeal) Rules (1968), the decision of their Lordships in Divisional Personnel Officer, Southern 'Railway and another Vs. T.B. Challappan, (supra) interpreting rule 14 (I) is not applicable, because the Regulation 47 of the Madhya Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation Employees Conduct Discipline and Appeal Regulations, 1975 does not apply to the case of the petitioner. The services of the petitioner were terminated on 20-8-75 i.e., before the Madhya Pradesh State Road Transport, Corporation Employees Conduct Discipline and Appeal Regulations, 1975 came into force. Regulation 51 provides that the repeal of Regulations 103 to 114 of the Madhya Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation Employee's Service Regulations, 1964 shall not affect the previous operation of the said Regulations. Under the Regulations so repealed, there was no right of appeal against an order of termination the services of an employee, if he had been convicted in a criminal Court. That being so, the appeal preferred by the petitioner under Regulation 43 was clearly not maintainable, There was, therefore, no duty cast on the General Manager to determine any of the matters referred to in Regulation 47. 5. The last submission is based on the decision in M.P. State Road Transport Corporation, Bhopal v. Ramchandra and others, 1977 JLJ 292 , where a Full Bench of this Court held that the Standard Standing Orders made applicable to the employees of the M.P. State Road Transport Corporation under the M.P. Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1961 w.e.f. 6-7-63 and the M.P. State Road Transport Corporation Employees Service Regulations framed under section 45 of the Road Transport Corporations Act, 1959 which came into force on 2-6-70, both co-existed is so far as they are not repugnent. It is, therefore, urged that the Corporation was in duty-bound to hold an enquiry in the manner provided by Standing Order 12. Since no such enquiry was held, the termination order under Standing Order 12 was invalid. If that be so, i.e. the order of termination was bad, being in contravention of Standing Order 13, the petitioner should have approached the Labour Court under section 31 (3) of the M. P. Industrial Relations Act, 1960. Since no such enquiry was held, the termination order under Standing Order 12 was invalid. If that be so, i.e. the order of termination was bad, being in contravention of Standing Order 13, the petitioner should have approached the Labour Court under section 31 (3) of the M. P. Industrial Relations Act, 1960. The petitioner cannot circumvent the normal remedy by straightaway approaching the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. In Mohd. Shafi v. State Industrial Court and others, (Miscellaneous Petition No. 168 of 1976, decided on 18-2-76, a similar contention was negatived by a Division Bench of this Court which observed: "The Supreme Court in Divl. Personal Officer v. T.B. Chellappan, AIR 1975 SC 2216 has held that if after conviction by the Court a fresh departmental enquiry is not dispensed with, it will lead to unnecessary waste of time and expenses and a fruitless duplication of the same proceedings all over again. It was for this reason that the founders of the Constitution 'thought that where once a delinquent employee has been convicted of a criminal offence that should be treated as a sufficient proof of his misconduct and the disciplinary authority may be given the discretion to impose penalties referred to in Art. 311 (2), namely, dismissal, removal or a reduction in rank." 6. There is no warrant for the submission in view of the decision in Sukhdev Singh v. Bhagatram. AIR 1975 SC 1331 , an employee of a statutory Corporation can straightaway file a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution against his order of dismissal. AIR 1975 SC 2216 and 1977 JLJ 292 (FB) distinguished. AIR 1975 SC 1371, referred to. M.P. No. 168 of 1976 decided on 18-2-76; relied on. Petition dismissed.