ORDER : P.B. BAJANTHRI, J. 1. In the instant petition, petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs: (a) Issue a writ or orders in the nature of writ of certiorari quashing the impugned punishment order dated 16-12-2014 bearing No. BMTC/ND/DFL/17217/22416, as per Annexure-B, order dated 29-3-2015 bearing No. BMTC/ND/DFL/G/21835/36780, as per Annexure-C, order dated 30-4-2015 bearing No. BMTC/ND/DFL/SA/3368/1182 as per Annexure-D, order dated 30-4-2015 bearing No. BMTC/ND/DFL/G/3367/1174 as per Annexure-E, order dated 30-4-2015 bearing No. BMTC/ND/DFL/SA/26506/3395 as per Annexure-F and dated 29-5-2015 bearing No. BMTC/ND/DFL/G/2380/3398 as per Annexure-G passed by the third respondent and impugned endorsement No. BMTC/CO/DFL/Appeal/419/2016-17, dated 27-6-2016 as per Annexure-J passed by the second respondent; (b) Issue a writ or order in the nature of writ of mandamus directing the second respondent to restore and re-fixation of pay scale arising out of setting aside the order under Annexures-B to G and pay all consequential benefits to the petitioner under the facts and circumstances of the case; (c) Pass such other order as to costs as this Hon'ble Court deems fit under the facts and circumstances of the case in the interest of justice and equity. 2. Undisputedly, petitioner has a statutory remedy of appeal before the Appellate Authority under Regulation 31 of Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation Servants (Conduct and Discipline) Regulations, 1971. Consequently, writ is not maintainable in view of the decision of the Apex Court in the case of State of jammu and Kashmir v. R.K. Zalpuri and Others VIII (2015) SLT 12 : 2016 (3) SCJ 500 : 2015 SCLT 540 (OnLine), AIR 2016 SC 3006 , at paragraph 20 has held as under: "20. Consequently, writ is not maintainable in view of the decision of the Apex Court in the case of State of jammu and Kashmir v. R.K. Zalpuri and Others VIII (2015) SLT 12 : 2016 (3) SCJ 500 : 2015 SCLT 540 (OnLine), AIR 2016 SC 3006 , at paragraph 20 has held as under: "20. Having stated thus, it is useful to refer to a passage form City and Industrial Development Corporation v. Dosu Aardeshir Bhiwandiwala and Others, (2009) 1 SCC 168 , wherein this Court while dwelling upon jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, has expressed thus: "The Court while exercising its jurisdiction under Article 226 is duty-bound to consider whether: (a) Adjudication of writ petition involves any complex and disputed question of facts and whether they can be satisfactorily resolved; (b) The petition reveals all material facts; (c) The petitioner has any alternative or effective remedy for the resolution of the dispute; (d) Person invoking the jurisdiction is guilty of unexplained delay and laches; (e) Ex facie barred by any laws of limitation; (f) Grant of relief is against public policy or barred by any valid law; and host of other factors. (g) Cost and such other relief deems fit to grant under the circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice and equity."" (emphasis supplied) Accordingly, writ petition stands disposed of reserving liberty to the petitioner to file memorandum of appeal before the Appellate Authority. Time spent in the present petition be taken note of for the purpose of condonation of delay in the memorandum of appeal. Further, Appellate Authority to decide the appeal to be filed within a reasonable period.