IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO WRIT PETITION NO : 11898 of 2009 Between: A.Mohan S/o.A.Pedda Rama Raju Deputy Executive Engineer College Sub Division T.T.Devasthanams Tirupathi Chittoor District ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Executive Officer T.T Devasthanam K.T Road Tirupathi Chittoor District 2 The Joint Executive Officer T.T Devasthanam K.T Road Tirupathi Chittoor District 3 The Chief Engineer T.T Devasthanam K.T Road Tirupathi Chittoor District 4 The Dy Executive Engineer College Sub Division T.T Devasthanam K.T Road, Tirupathi Chittoor District 5 The Enquiry Officer Assistant Executive Officer S.V.Balamandir,T.T.D Tirupathi .....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 or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring that the issued of Proceedings in Roc No.DA5/2512/2007 dt 3-6-2009 by the respondents in conducting further enquiry is arbitrary illegal and unsustainable and thereby further direct that the petitioner is liable for all the consequential benefits from the date of suspension proceedings Roc No.DA5/2512/2007 dt 20-3-2008 in the interests justice and equity. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.SAMINENI KISHORE Counsel for the Respondent No.: MR.P.HARINATH GUPTA The Court at the stage of admission made the following O R D E R: The writ petitioner was working as an Assistant Technical Officer with the respondent - Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanams. Certain charges have been levelled against him that he was involved in criminal cases resulting in his being charge-sheeted by the police. He has been subjected to disciplinary enquiry. An Enquiry Officer was appointed to conduct the enquiry into the charges. The Enquiry Officer is said to have concluded the enquiry and submitted a report on 5th May 2009. The disciplinary authority now passed an order on 3rd June 2009 finding that the Enquiry Officer has not conducted the enquiry on proper lines and hence, he remitted back the matter for the Enquiry Officer to conduct enquiry on both the charges levelled against the petitioner and to submit the enquiry report and findings within 15 days. Calling in question this order, dated 3rd June 2009, the present Writ Petition has been instituted. When once the competent disciplinary authority initiates disciplinary proceedings by framing charges against an employee, he could have conducted the enquiry himself into such charges or he could have appointed any officer to conduct such an enquiry. When the Enquiry Officer so appointed submits the report in the matter, the disciplinary authority is entitled to apply his mind to such a report. He can agree with the finding recorded by the Enquiry Officer, provided they are based upon the material collected at the enquiry and the conclusions are appropriately drawn based thereon. He can disagree with the findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer, provided the material on record warrants such an inference to be drawn and for valid reasons, he can also remit the matter back for fresh enquiry. In the instant case, the disciplinary authority has exercised the third option available with him. By remitting the matter back for fresh enquiry, no prejudice is going to be caused to the interests of the petitioner. On the other hand, the enquiry will again be conducted in the presence of the petitioner, duly providing him a fair and reasonable opportunity not only to controvert the material that is likely to be brought on record now by cross-examining the witnesses to be examined on behalf of the disciplinary authority and he will also have the benefit of producing the material or evidence, which is in his favour as well. Therefore, by remitting the matter back for fresh enquiry, no grave prejudice is being caused to the interests of the petitioner, excepting that the agony of being placed under suspension pending enquiry, will continue to prolong for a while more. Perhaps, keeping this very factor in mind, the disciplinary authority has required the enquiry to be completed this time around within 15 days. I do not see any legal infirmity in the impugned order and therefore, I dismiss this Writ Petition at the stage of admission. No observations made in this order be construed as reflection in any way on the merits of the matter. No costs. ---------------------------------- (NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO, J) 18th June 2009 ksld ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1) 2 CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{BMR}