JUDGMENT Ashwani Kumar Mishra,J. Petitioner is aggrieved by an order dated 25.2.2016, whereby he has been removed from service. By the order under challenge, petitioner's gratuity has also been forfeited, as it has been found that he has caused loss to the corporation. Various submissions have been urged in support of the petition. 2. Sri Sunil Kumar Mishra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent corporation, submits that petitioner has statutory alternative remedy of preferring an appeal in terms of Rule-69 of the U.P. State Road Transport Corporation (other than officers) Service Regulations, 1981, and it is, therefore, contended that writ petition be not entertained. 3. Having considered the submissions, this Court finds that as the petitioner has an effective efficacious alternative remedy of pursuing his grievance in appeal, this writ petition is not liable to be entertained. 4. However, it is provided that in case petitioner prefers an appeal before the authority concerned, within a period of two weeks from today alongwith certified copy of this order, the appellate authority shall make all endeavours to consider and dispose of the same, at the earliest possible, preferably, within a period of four months from the date of its filing. 5. Subject to the aforesaid observations, the writ petition is dismissed.