IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD MONDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA WRIT APPEAL NO : 1072 of 2007 (Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the Order dated 17/04/2007 in WP NO : 26615 OF 1997 on the file of the High Court.) Between: 1 The Singareni Colleires Company Limited, Rep. by its Director, (Personnel) Kothagudem, Khammam District. 2 The Superintendent of Mines, Somagudem No.1 Incline, Mandamarri, Adilabad District. 3 The Director of Mines Safety, Hyderabad Region-II-10, Santhinagar, Hyderabad. 4 The General Manager, Singareni Collerites Company Ltd., Mandamarri, Adilabad District. ..... APPELLANT(S) AND A.Damodar, S/o Shankaraiah, SMG-I Incline, Singareni Colleries Company Ltd., Bellampalli, Adilabad District. .....RESPONDENT Counsel for the Appellant:MR.K.SRINIVASA MURTHY Counsel for the Respondent No.: MR.T.RAMULU The Court made the following : JUDGMENT: (Per TGK,J) The respondent herein approached this Court and filed W.P.No. 26615 of 1997 with the following prayer: “to issue an order, direction or a writ more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the impugned office order No. P.10/4201/IR/1866, dated 4-9-97 as illegal, arbitrary and set aside the same and direct the first respondent not to revert the petitioner from the post of overman and pending disposal of the above writ petition and pass such other order or orders as this Hon’ble Court deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.” The learned single Judge, having heard the 4th respondent- Singareni Collieries Company Ltd., has come to the conclusion that the particulars as to what exactly is the evidence led before the Enquiry Officer, how the charges framed against the petitioner are proved and how the evidence was reconsidered by the Disciplinary Authority are not at all available. It was also observed by the learned single Judge that the Disciplinary Authority without any application of mind, simply accepted the report of the Enquiry Officer and passed the said order dated 4-9-1997 reverting the delinquent by one grade to another and accordingly set aside the said proceeding dated 4-9-1997. In our considered view the said order passed by the learned single Judge is perfectly justified. Learned counsel for the appellant tried to impress upon this Court stating that by virtue of the said order passed by the learned single Judge, the appellant is not in a position to proceed further with fresh enquiry. We are afraid the said contention is untenable. What all the learned single Judge found in his order is that the said order dated 4-9-1997 is without appreciating the evidence and thus set aside the said order dated 4-9-1997 and it does not mean that the power of the appellant in holding further enquiry has been taken away. Accordingly we see no merit in this writ appeal and the same is accordingly dismissed. However, it is made clear that if the Disciplinary Authority so pleases, he is free to pass a fresh order in accordance with law in relation to the action to be taken against the respondent herein. ANIL R. DAVE, CJ GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA, J 18th February, 2008 GRR To 1. 2.2 CD copies