IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI ANIL R. DAVE, THE CHIEF JUSTICE and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT APPEAL NO : 1644 of 2008 (Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the Order dated 17/10/2008 in WP NO : 17569 OF 2008 on the file of the High Court.) Between: P.Rajashekar Reddy S/o. P. Ranga Reddy C/o. Commissioner of Panchayat Raj & Rural Employment, Panchayat Bhavan, Urdu Hall Lane, Himayathnagar, Hyd. Presently working on other duty as Superintendent at Mandal Praja Parishad, Keesara, Ranga Reddy District. ..... APPELLANT AND 1 Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep by its Secretary, Panchayat Raj & Rural Devp Dept, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad. 2 Commissioner of Panchayat Raj and Rural Employment and Panchayat Raj Bhavan, Urdu Hall Lane, Himayathnagar, Hyderabad. .....RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Appellant:MR.P.V.S.S.S.RAMA RAO Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ & RURAL DEV. The Court made the following : JUDGMENT: (per Sri Anil R. Dave, CJ) 1. The appellant-original petitioner has challenged the validity of the order passed in W.P.No. 17569 of 2008, dated 17-10-2008 in this appeal. 2. The facts giving rise to the petition, in a nutshell, are as under: The charge against the appellant-petitioner is that while he was working as Superintendent in the office of Commissioner of Panchayat Raj and Rural Employment, Hyderabad he had forged signatures of his superior officers and issued certain orders with regard to promotion of some persons in an absolutely unauthorized and illegal manner. For the said reasons, disciplinary proceedings had been initiated and it was also decided that the matter should be investigated by CBCID. Subsequently there were some changes in the manner of investigation and as a result thereof, a criminal case has also been registered. The petitioner was aggrieved by the way in which action was being taken by the Government and, therefore, the petition was filed. After considering the facts of the case, the learned single Judge has rejected the petition and, therefore, this appeal has been filed. We have heard the learned Advocate for the appellant and have noted the facts. In our opinion, it is for the Government authorities to decide the way in which action should be taken against the appellant. It is not for the appellant to decide as to how the Government authorities should prosecute him or investigate the charges leveled against him. In our opinion, the appellant is making efforts to see that the proceedings initiated against him are obstructed. We are in agreement with the views expressed by the learned single Judge and, therefore, the appeal is dismissed. The appeal stands dismissed with no order as to costs. _____________________ ANIL R. DAVE, CJ _________________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY, J 11th December, 2008. GRR