THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No. 14927 OF 2008 O R D E R: The petitioner is working as ASI, in the Central Industrial Security Force, and at present, he is posted in the unit at Visakhapatnam Steel Plant. A charge memo was issued to him on 24.5.2007, alleging certain acts of misconduct. Departmental enquiry was conducted, and ultimately, through the final order dated 19.9.2007, the 2nd respondent imposed the punishment of postponement of three increments, with cumulative effect. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner filed an appeal before the 1st respondent. The appeal was allowed, through order dated 28.01.2008, on the ground that the petitioner was not given adequate opportunity in the departmental enquiry, and that he has not been permitted to avail the assistance. The 2nd respondent was directed to conduct de novo enquiry. The fresh enquiry was commenced into the charges, by appointing the 3rd respondent, as enquiry officer. A report dated 5.6.2008 was submitted by the 3rd respondent, holding that one charge was proved and the other was not proved against the petitioner. The 2nd respondent, in turn, issued a show-cause notice, dated 7.6.2008, requiring the petitioner to explain as to why he shall not disagree with the finding of the 3rd respondent on the charge, and he required the petitioner to submit explanation. This writ petition is filed, assailing the report of the enquiry officer and the consequential show-cause notice. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that though the order dated 19.9.2007 passed by the 2nd respondent was set aside, by the 1st respondent, the petitioner is being paid reduced pay, as though the order of punishment is in operation. He submits that during the course of de novo enquiry, the petitioner insisted that the 2nd respondent be summoned as a witness, and had taken exception to the functioning of the 3rd respondent-enquiry officer, and the same was not taken into account. Learned Additional Standing Counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, submits that the petitioner can raise all the objections in the same explanation, that may be submitted to the show-cause notice, and even if any order adverse to his interest is passed, he can prefer appeal before the 2nd respondent. The grievance of the petitioner is two-fold; first is as regards reduction of pay-scale, on the basis of the order dated 19.9.2007; and the second is about the validity of the disciplinary enquiry. The order dated 19.9.2007, passed by the 2nd respondent, was set aside by the 1st respondent in the appeal, and the de novo enquiry was directed. With that, the punishment imposed against the petitioner stood set aside. Therefore, there was no basis for the 2nd respondent, in not restoring the pay-scale to the petitioner. In a way, it amounts to defying the orders of appellate authority. Therefore, there is substance in the grievance pointed out by the petitioner. Coming to the second limb of the grievance of the petitioner, it needs to be observed that even assuming that any defect or irregularity existed in the de novo enquiry, it shall always be open to him, to point out the same in the explanation, in response to the show-cause notice dated 7.6.2008. There is no reason to believe that the 2nd respondent would not take such explanation into account, before any further action is taken. At any rate, even assuming that the objection raised by the petitioner is not taken into account, it shall always be open to him, to canvas his grievance, before the appellate authority, as he did in the earlier round of litigation. For the foregoing reasons, the writ petition is partly allowed, directing that; a) the 2nd respondent shall forthwith restore the pay-scale of the petitioner and release the arrears, within four weeks from today, and the further steps against the petitioner, in the disciplinary proceedings, shall be taken, only after restoration of pay-scale and payment of arrears; and b) it shall be open to the petitioner, to put forward all his contentions, vis-à-vis the report of the enquiry officer, or the show-cause notice dated 7.6.2008, in his explanation, and the same shall be taken into account by the 2nd respondent. There shall be no order as to costs. ________________ 11th July 2008 PAN