THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.6458 of 2010 ORDER: In this writ petition, the petitioner has questioned the validity of the proceedings bearing No.DPD/1208, dated 21.01.2010 issued by the second respondent and the charge sheet, dated 22.10.2008 issued by the third respondent against him. The petitioner is an employee of the State Bank of Hyderabad. He worked as a Deputy Manager (Accounts) at Patoda Branch during the period from 20.07.2006 to 29.11.2007. On the allegation that he misappropriated an amount of Rs.21,74,000/-, disciplinary proceedings were initiated and following charges were framed against him. “It is alleged that while working as Deputy Manager (Accounts) at Patoda during the period from 20.07.2006 to 29.11.2007 and till date of suspension, you failed to discharge your duties with devotion and diligence inasmuch as you have misappropriated an amount of Rs.21,74,000/- (Rupees Twenty One Lac Seventy Four Thousand only) in the Currency Chest which was detected by the verification officer during verification of currency chest of the Patoda Branch (which was conducted on 29.11.2007 and concluded on 08.12.2007) You have failed in your duty as joint custodian which has resulted in loss of Rs.21,74,000/- (Rupees Twenty One Lac Seventy Four Thousand only) to the Bank. As there is a loss of Rs.21,74,000/- (Rupees Twenty One Lac Seventy Four Thousand only) and also the image of the Bank has been affected. Your above acts, if established, are in violation of Regulation of 50(4) of SBH (officers) Service Regulations, 1979 and constitute Misconduct under Regulation 66.” To enquire into the said charges, inquiry officer was appointed and a report was submitted by him on 31.08.2009. Based on the findings recorded by the inquiry officer, the disciplinary authority issued proceedings, dated 21.01.2010 proposing to impose on the petitioner the punishment of dismissal from service and advising him to submit his representation within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of it. Questioning the said proceedings, the petitioner filed the present writ petition. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that though the petitioner has submitted written representations to the charges framed against him, the same were not considered and adverse findings were recorded by the inquiry officer and that based on such adverse findings, the petitioner is sought to be dismissed from service. If the petitioner finds any illegality in the findings recorded by the inquiry officer, he is at liberty to approach the second respondent by way of a representation putting forth his objections pursuant to the proceedings, dated 21.01.2010. Instead of filing representation before the second respondent, the petitioner on the apprehension that he will be dismissed from service, approached this Court, which cannot interfere with the matters of this nature at this stage. For the aforesaid reasons, the writ petition is dismissed. However, it is open for the petitioner to submit his representation, if not already submitted, pursuant to the proceedings, dated 21.01.2010, to the second respondent within a period of two (2) weeks from today. No order as to costs. ______________________ R.SUBHASH REDDY, J 23rd MARCH, 2010. kvni