IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) PRESENT: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY THURSDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF DECEMBER, TWO THOUSAND EIGHT ONLY WRIT PETITION No.31916 of 1998 Between: R.Duddisti Rao. … Petitioner And Sri Visakha Grameena Bank, reptd., by its Chairman (Disciplinary Authority) at Srikakulam and another. … Respondents Counsel for the petitioner: None. Counsel for the respondents: Ms.Uma Devi for Sri K.Srinivasa Murthy. This Court made the following: ORDER:- This Writ Petition is filed for a Writ of Certiorari to quash order dated 4-11-1997 passed by respondent No.1 and order dated 7-2-1998 passed by respondent No.2. The petitioner, at the relevant, was working as Branch Manager in respondent No.1-Bank. Disciplinary proceedings were initiated and six charges were framed against him. After enquiry, the disciplinary authority imposed the punishment of withholding of two increments with cumulative effect, which shall have the effect of postponing the future increments. The petitioner filed an appeal before respondent No.2, which was dismissed by order dated 7-2-1998. In the Writ Petition, the petitioner mainly raised two legal contentions, viz., (1) the disciplinary authority committed a serious procedural illegality by not stating in the notice issued to the petitioner that he was differing with the findings of the enquiry officer on charges 1,2,4 and 5 to the extent that the enquiry officer held that the said charges were not proved and that no reasons for such disagreement were indicated in the notice; and (2) the appellate authority has not given any reasons whatsoever in dismissing the appeal. At the hearing, Ms.V.Uma Devi, learned counsel representing the respondents, while conceding to the fact that the disciplinary authority has not stated in the notice that he was differing with the findings of the enquiry officer, has, however, submitted that the appellate authority may be directed to consider the appeal afresh. However, I am not inclined to accept this submission because as held by the Supreme Court in Punjab National Bank Vs. Kunj Behari Mishra - AIR 1998 SC 2713 - that when the disciplinary authority proposes to differ with the findings of the enquiry officer, it is incumbent upon him to inform the same to the delinquent and indicate the reasons therefor in order to give the delinquent an opportunity of explaining against the views expressed by the disciplinary authority. As this procedure being fundamental to the service jurisprudence, nonobservance of this procedure is fatal and the order passed by the disciplinary authority itself is liable to be set-aside on this short ground. The Writ Petition is accordingly allowed. Orders of respondents 1 and 2 are quashed. The matter is remitted to respondent No.1 for fresh consideration by giving a show-cause notice to the petitioner, in which it shall state the factum of and the reasons for disagreement with the findings of the enquiry officer, and shall pass a fresh order after considering the representation, if any, made by the petitioner. ------------------------------------ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY,J Date:18-12-2008 MNR