Judgment : L. Narasimha Reddy, J. The respondent was employed as a Conductor in the Adilabad Depot of the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (for short ‘the Corporation’). On 29-06-1998, he was assigned the duty to conduct the service between Adilabad and Chandrapur via Balarsha. He performed the duties for the concerned trips. On the next day i.e., on 30-06-1998, a written complaint was submitted by persons named A.B. Siriskar, resident of Nagpur and Devanna, Sarpanch of Bela to the appellant, stating that the respondent collected Rs.6.00 each from nine of the passengers but issued seven invalid tickets i.e., re-issued tickets and two valid tickets. Acting on the complaint, the appellant issued a charge sheet dated 11-09-1998 alleging irregularities on the part of the respondent. An explanation was submitted by the respondent denying the charges. Domestic enquiry was conducted and through order dated 10-03-1999, the appellant removed the respondent from service. Challenging the order of removal, the respondent filed Writ Petition No. 6882 of 1999 before this Court. The writ petition was allowed on 22-02-2002 on the ground that the so-called complainants were not examined in the domestic enquiry and there existed a serious flaw in the proceedings. The objection raised by the appellant herein as to the maintainability of the writ petition was overruled. The matter was ultimately remanded for enquiry, wherein the complainants were required to be examined as witnesses. After remand, the appellant passed an order dated 23-01-2003 directing removal of the respondent from service. It was mentioned that though efforts were made to procure the presence of the complainants, they did not turn up and the material on record was taken into account. Challenging the said order, the respondent filed Writ Petition No. 8416 of 2003. The learned single Judge allowed the writ petition through order dated 12-07-2013. Hence, this writ appeal. Heard Sri K. Srinivasa Rao, learned Standing Counsel for the appellant and Sri G. Vidya Sagar, learned Senior Counsel for the respondent. The ground urged by the appellant is that the respondent straightaway filed the writ petition challenging the order of removal without availing the alternative remedy of raising an industrial dispute under Section 2-A(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. It is no doubt true that this Court would not entertain a writ petition straightaway, in case an employee has the remedy of raising an industrial dispute. It is no doubt true that this Court would not entertain a writ petition straightaway, in case an employee has the remedy of raising an industrial dispute. However, there exist two grounds that warrant the rejection of the objection raised by the appellant. The first is that the respondent has already approached this Court by filing Writ Petition No. 6882 of 1999 challenging the order or removal dated 10-03-1999 and the similar objection raised at that time was rejected. The second is that the necessity to approach the Labour Court would arise if only any disputed questions of fact are to be examined. In the instance case, the order of removal was passed on the basis of a compliant submitted by two passengers, though those passengers were not examined at all. Therefore, the objection cannot be countenanced. Now about the merits: Disciplinary proceedings are initiated against the conductors of the Corporation almost exclusively when certain cash and ticket irregularities are noticed during a check conducted by the officials of the Corporation. This is a rare case in which no check was conducted at all and the proceedings were initiated on the basis of a complaint said to have been submitted by two passengers, one day after the date of journey. In case, the passengers have any grievance about the conductor, complaint was required to be made on the same day, in which case there would have been an opportunity for verification of the relevant records. If the complaint made against a conductor reveals some objectionable acts on his part, the mere fact that the complaint was submitted on a subsequent date may not make much of difference. However, the allegation must be proved to the satisfaction of the Enquiry Officer. That would be possible if only the complainants depose as witnesses and they are permitted to be cross examined by the delinquent employee. In the case on hand, though the proceedings were initiated on the basis of the complaint submitted by two persons who are said to have travelled the bus conducted by the respondent, they were not examined as witnesses. Except those persons, no other person could have vouched for the correctness of the facts mentioned in the complaint. Having submitted complaint, those passengers did not turn up. Hence, there was a serious flaw and defect in the entire proceedings. Except those persons, no other person could have vouched for the correctness of the facts mentioned in the complaint. Having submitted complaint, those passengers did not turn up. Hence, there was a serious flaw and defect in the entire proceedings. The order of dismissal was passed on the basis of a report submitted by the Enquiry Officer, before whom the complainants were not examined at all. The order of removal was set aside and the matter was remanded for the specific purpose of examining the complainants. After such remand also, there was not improvement whatever. Though the complainants did not turn up and they were not examined, the disciplinary authority once again passed the order of dismissal. The learned single Judge has undertaken extensive discussion in the matter, duly taking into account the principles of law and the relevant precedents that govern the case and has arrived at a correct conclusion. We do not find any basis to interfere in the judgment rendered by the learned single Judge. The writ appeal is accordingly dismissed. The miscellaneous petitions pending in this appeal shall also stand disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.