IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 1374 of 2008 Between: Shaik Fakeer Ahmed, S/o. Sidda Saheb, Central Office, Kothagudem Thermal Power Plant, Khamma (Palavancha) KTPS, R/o. Qr. No. B.F/202, B. Colony, Palavancha, ' Khammam District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Andhra Pradesh Power Generation Corporation Limited, Vidyut Soudha, Khairtabad Hyderabad, Rep. by its Managing Director. 2 Chief Engineer, Operation & Maintenance, K.T.P.S., Paloncha, Khammam District. .....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 of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ, direction or Order of like nature declaring the proceedings CE/O&MKTPS/ADM-A3/D.No. 238/07 dated 3-11-2007 of the 2nd Respondent as void. Counsel for the Petitioner:DR.K.SATYANARAYANA RAO Counsel for the Respondent No.: MR.K.CHIDAMBARAM The Court made the following : ORDER The petitioner is a Lower Division Clerk in the office of the Chief Engineer, Operation & Maintenance, KTPS, Paloncha- 2nd respondent. An incident occurred in the office of the 2nd respondent wherein one Y.Pitchaiah, UDC came to be manhandled. Proceedings were initiated against the petitioner regarding the said incident. Pending enquiry, the 2nd respondent issued proceedings dated 3.11.2007 keeping the petitioner under suspension. The said proceedings are under challenge in this writ petition. Rule Nisi came to be issued on 31.1.2008. The proceedings impugned in the writ petition came to be suspended on the even date vide order in WPMP No.1641 of 2008. The respondents entered appearance and filed WVMP No.988 of 2008. One S.Ashok Kumar has sworn to the counter- affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents. It is stated in the counter-affidavit that suspension order is preceded by preliminary enquiry of the disciplinary authority and in exercise of powers under Regulation 11 of APSEB Discipline and Appeal Regulations, the petitioner is suspended, pending regular departmental enquiry. When the vacate stay petition came up for consideration, with the consent of the learned counsel for the petitioner, the writ petition is taken up for final disposal. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties. Interim order came to be passed on 31.1.2008. Thereby an order suspension pending enquiry is abeyance. It is submitted by the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents that the enquiry has been completed and show cause notice has been issued to the petitioner proposing the punishment of stoppage one increment with cumulative effect. The copy of the show cause notice served on the petitioner has been placed on record. The text of the show cause notice reads as hereunder: “With reference to the letter under 3rd cited above, it is to inform that the departmental enquiry has been completed, and the same was submitted to the office of the Chief Engineer/KTPS(O&M) vide reference 1st cited above. Consequently this office has issued show-cause- notice to the above incumbent vide reference 2nd cited above duly proposing the punishment of “withholding of one increment with cumulative effect besides treating the period of suspension as such”. The reply from the party to the above show- cause-notice is awaited. This is for information and further action please.” Since the disciplinary authority-2nd respondent issued notice to the petitioner proposing the punishment of withholding one increment, I see no valid ground to vacate the interim order granted on 31.1.2008. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of directing the respondents to pass necessary orders consequent on the issuance of show cause notice proposing the punishment. __________ 24-02-2009 rkk