IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 9241 of 2008 Between: T. Nageswara Rao S/o. T.S. Narayana Murthy A.P. State Housing Corporation Ltd., Pedagantyada Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. (Now under suspension) ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The A.P. State Housing Corporation Ltd., rep. by its Managing Director, Urdu Hall, Himayathnagar, Hyderabad. 2 The District Collector / Executive Director, The A.P. State Housing Corporation, VUDA Buildings, Siripuram Junction, Visakhapatnam. 3 K. Adi Subrahmanyam Deputy Executive Engineer / District Manager, In charge, The A.P. State Housing Corporation, VUDA Buildings, Siripuram Junction, Visakhapatnam. 4 V. Vijayalakshmi, Assistant Engineer, The A.P. State Housing Corporation, Municipal Officer, Bheemunipatnam, Visakhapatnam District. 5 Bh. Srinivas, Deputy Executive Engineer(H)/Enquiry Officer, A.P. State Housing Corporation, Narsipatnam, Visakhapatnam. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue a writ or order more in nature of writ of Mandamus in declaring the action of the 1st and 2nd respondents in not initiating the departmental enquiry against the 3rd and 4th respondents for the charges framed against me to which they are directly responsible as per the facts submitted in this writ petition and the final report of the Inspector of the Police in Crime No.485/07 as illegal, arbitrary, violative of Principles of the natural justice and consequently direct the 1st and 2nd respondents to forthwith initiate departmental enquiry against the 3rd and 4th respondent by calling all the original documents referred to the Charge Memo dated 18.07.2007 and Show Cause Notice dated 09.01.2008 issued against the petitioner and pass such other orders or order. Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri.K.R.Srinivas Counsel for the Respondents: Sri.K.Mohan Rami Reddy The Court made the following ORDER: The petitioner is employed as Technical Work Inspector in A.P. State Housing Corporation Limited, the first respondent herein. Disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him by issuing a Charge Memo, dated 18.07.2007. The petitioner submitted his explanation on 25.07.2007 and a departmental enquiry was conducted. The Enquiry Officer submitted his report on 08.12.2007. On a consideration of the same, the second respondent issued a show cause notice, dated 09.01.2008, directing the petitioner to explain as to why necessary punishment shall not be inflicted upon him. The petitioner, in turn, submitted his explanation on 17.01.2007, raising several grounds. He pointed out certain defects in the enquiry proceedings and also stated that the report of the Enquiry Officer was not furnished to him. Thereupon, the remarks from the Enquiry Officer were called for. The petitioner approached this Court with a prayer to issue a writ of mandamus declaring the action of respondents 1 and 2 in not initiating departmental enquiry against respondents 3 and 4 for the charges framed against him in view of the final report submitted by the Inspector of Police in Crime No.485 of 2007, is violative of principles of natural justice and consequently, direct them to initiate disciplinary proceedings. Sri K.R.Srinivas, the learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that several lapses have occurred in the disciplinary proceedings initiated against the petitioner and though respondents 3 and 4 have resorted to acts of indiscipline, respondents 1 and 2 did not initiate any proceedings. The petitioner is facing disciplinary proceedings and they are at advanced stage. The petitioner can assail the proceedings only when a final order is passed in conclusion thereof. The grievance pointed out in this writ petition is about the failure of respondents 1 and 2 in initiating the proceedings against respondents 3 and 4. As of now, the petitioner himself is facing the proceedings and it is not for him to insist on respondents 1 and 2 to institute proceedings against other employees. It is always for an employer to take a decision as to the nature of action to be initiated against his employees. No one can compel an employer to initiate disciplinary proceedings against his subordinates. The writ petition is misconceived and it is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. __________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY,J Dt:25.04.2008. kdl ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{MSN}