IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 9177 of 2008 Between: K.Ramachander S/o.Kanakaiah presently at Godavarikhani Depot H.No.9-4-618 Near Millenium Boys Hostel Sapthagiri Colony Karimnagar Dist ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The A.P.S.T.R.T.C Rep.by its Managing Director Office at R.T.C Cross Roads, Hyd 2 The Depot Manager Godavarikhani Depot A.P.S.R.T.C Karimnagar Dist .....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 of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ order or direction the 2nd respondent in initiating disciplinary proceedings by issuing charge sheet dt.20-11-2007 vide proceedings No.E3/1(37)/06-GDKN and consequently issuing show cause notice of removal Dt.16-4-2008 vide proceedings No.9 E3/1(35)/2007 GKDN as illegal arbitrary without jurisdiction and in violation of Article 14,16 and 311 of the constitution of the India and set aside the same. Counsel for the Petitioner: SMT.G.JYOTHI KIRAN Counsel for the Respondents: SMT.P.RAJANI REDDY The Court made the following ORDER: The petitioner is working as Mechanic in Godavarikhani Depot of A.P.S.R.T.C. He was issued a charge sheet, dated 20.11.2007, alleging that he remained unauthorisedly absent for a long period. The petitioner submitted his explanation on 27.11.2007. Domestic enquiry was ordered and a report, dated 29.03.2008, was submitted holding that the charges levelled against the petitioner are proved. Taking the enquiry report into account, the second respondent issued a show cause notice, dated 16.04.2008, proposing to remove the petitioner from service. The petitioner challenges the show cause notice. He contends that the second respondent is not competent to initiate disciplinary proceedings and that though he was suffering from ill-health and could not attend in the domestic enquiry, an ex parte report was submitted. Heard Smt.G.Jyothi Kiran, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Smt.P.Rajani Reddy, the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. It is only in rare and exceptional cases that this Court would interfere with a show cause notice, that too, before the submission of report by the enquiry officer. In case the petitioner had any valid explanation to offer, be it as regards his absence in the domestic enquiry or in relation to his absence from duty, he can, certainly, offer the explanation in response to the impugned show cause notice. Any objection as to the competence of the second respondent can also be pointed out in the explanation. This Court is not inclined to interfere with the show cause notice. Hence, the writ petition is disposed of, upholding the show cause notice, and leaving it open to the petitioner to raise all the grounds in his explanation. There shall be no order as to costs. __________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY,J Dt:24.04.2008. kdl ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{BMR}