THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.17380 of 2011 ORDER: The petitioner was working as Staff Assistant in the A.P. State Cooperative Bank Limited, respondent No.1 herein. A charge memorandum was issued to him on 24.05.2003 alleging as many as 14 acts of misconduct. The petitioner submitted his explanation and not satisfied with that, the Managing Director, respondent No.2 herein, appointed an Enquiry Officer. After conducting a detailed enquiry, the Enquiry Officer submitted a report on 06.04.2005 holding that none of the charges framed against the petitioner are proved. However, respondent No.2 has differed with the findings and issued a show cause notice, dated 26.02.2007, requiring the petitioner to explain as to why proper punishment should not be inflicted. He has also required the petitioner to explain as to why findings of the Enquiry Officer be not differed and the charges against him be not held proved. The petitioner submitted his explanation on 01.08.2007. He raised an objection as to the very procedure adopted by respondent No.2. He has also pleaded the matter on merits. Not satisfied with that, respondent No.2 issued proceedings, dated 20.08.2007, imposing the punishment of reduction in rank to the post of Staff Assistant. The period of suspension with effect from 26.02.2003 was directed to be treated as regularized against leave due. The same is challenged in this writ petition. The principal contention urged by the petitioner is that respondent No.2 differed with the findings of the Enquiry Officer without issuing show cause notice and straightaway he has recorded a finding to the effect that the charges are proved. Another contention is that the reversion was affected without any time limit, thereby sealing the career of the petitioner forever. The respondents filed a counter-affidavit. It is stated that the prescribed procedure was followed and the petitioner was given ample opportunity at every stage. It is also stated that the charges framed against the petitioner are grave in nature and the punishment was imposed commensurate with the gravity of the charges. Heard Sri S.Lakshma Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Komatireddy Venkat Narasimha Reddy, learned counsel for the respondents. The charge sheet contained as many as 14 allegations against the petitioner. An explanation was submitted, denying all the allegations. Domestic Enquiry was conducted and the Enquiry Officer submitted a report holding that none of the charges framed against the petitioner are proved. It was open to respondent No.2 to differ with the charges and to arrive at his own conclusion. However, he was required to put the petitioner on notice before taking a different view. Obviously on account of lack of proper guidance or experience, respondent No.2 has chosen to issue a show cause notice, which does not accord with law. The show cause notice is in two parts. The first is that respondent No.2 required the petitioner to explain as to why the findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer be not differed with. If the matter were to have ended there, the procedure would have been perfect. However, at the same spell and in the second part, he proceeded to require the petitioner to explain as to why charges shall not be treated as proved. That could have been done only when respondent No.2 indicated the reasons for his tentative views and the petitioner submitted his explanation to the notice so issued. Assuming that both those steps could have been taken or accomplished through one notice, the procedure adopted by the respondents still remains contrary to law. The reason is that in the same show cause notice, he has proposed the punishment also. In matters of this nature, the occasion to propose punishment would arise if only the appointing authority has recorded findings of his own after issuing a show cause notice to the employee proposing to differ with the findings and considering the explanation thereto. Such a step was not taken. Hence, the procedure adopted by respondent No.2 is contrary to law. Added to the grave illegality that has crept into the proceedings, respondent No.2 has imposed a punishment, which virtually seals the career of the petitioner forever. Hence, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned proceedings are set aside. It is, however, directed that it shall be open to respondent No.2 to issue a show cause notice to the petitioner proposing to differ with the findings of the Enquiry Officer, duly indicating the reasons therefor and to take a final decision on the charges framed against the petitioner, after considering the explanation. Depending on the outcome of this exercise, it shall be open to him to issue a show cause notice proposing the punishment, if it is warranted. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY,J Dt:28.09.2011. Note: L.R. copy to be marked. kdl