HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA WRI PETITION No.11828 of 2002 ORDER: This writ petition is filed questioning the order of punishment of stoppage of three annual grade increments of the petitioner dated 08.06.1998 passed by the 2nd respondent-General Manager, District Cooperative Central Bank Limited, Mahabubnagar, as confirmed by the 1st respondent-President, Managing Committee, District Cooperative Central Bank Limited, Mahabubnagar by his order, dated 18.04.2002. The case of the petitioner is that he was appointed as Supervisor in the respondents bank and subsequently he was promoted as Assistant Manager on 25.05.1996. Thereafter, the petitioner was chargesheeted for an allegation of retaining a sum of Rs.9000/- collected from the borrowers and failed to remit the same into the bank. The petitioner has submitted an explanation on 15.05.1998 denying the charges levelled against him. It is further stated that the 2nd respondent, without conducting any enquiry and without issuing any show cause notice, passed an order dated 08.06.1998 imposing punishment of stoppage of three annual grade increments with cumulative effect by reducing the basic pay of the petitioner. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner preferred an appeal and the same was dismissed by the 1st respondent by order dated 18.04.2002. Hence the present writ petition. Heard both sides. Since the proceedings of the 2nd respondent dated 08.06.1998 does not read as to whether any Enquiry Officer was appointed or any enquiry was conducted in the matter, this Court directed the learned Counsel for the respondents to produce relevant records and accordingly relevant records were produced before this Court. From a perusal of the records, this Court is of the view that the order of punishment was passed against the petitioner by the 2nd respondent without conducting any enquiry against him. In fact, no Enquiry Officer was appointed in the matter. It is solely on the basis of the enquiry report of the Assistant Divisional Officer, the said order of punishment has been passed against the petitioner. In my considered view, the said order is not only contrary to the established procedure of law but also the principles of natural justice. Hence, this Court has no hesitation to come to the conclusion that the order passed by the 2nd respondent dated 08.06.1998 as confirmed by the 1st respondent by order dated 18.04.2002 are liable to be set aside. The Writ Petition is accordingly allowed and the order dated 08.06.1998 passed by the 2nd respondent, as confirmed by the 1st respondent by order dated 18.04.2002 are hereby set aside. No order as to costs. _____________________________ (GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA, J) 29-03-2010 Gsn.