THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO WRIT PETITION No. 24228 of 1999 O R D E R: This Writ Petition has been instituted by one Sri A.V. Ramana Murthy, who was working at the relevant point of time as a Bill Collector/L.D. Clerk with the Andhra Pradesh Power Transmission Corporation, calling in question the legality and validity of the memo, dated 18.06.1999 issued by the 2nd respondent Superintending Engineer, Operation, A.P. Transco, Rajahmundry, East Godavari District. The 2nd respondent, through the impugned memo, dated 18.06.1999, has proposed to impose the punishment of removal from service for the proven misconduct committed by the writ petitioner. The writ petitioner has challenged the validity of this memo on variety of grounds, including the one that earlier to the impugned memo issued by the 2nd respondent Superintending Engineer on 18.06.1999, he was issued a show cause notice through memo dated 12.11.1998 by the very same Superintending Engineer, calling upon him to show cause as to why the punishment of stoppage of three increments with cumulative effect besides treating the period of suspension as suspension as such should not be imposed on him for the proven misconduct. It is the case of the writ petitioner that for a set of allegations, he has been subjected to disciplinary enquiry. The disciplinary proceedings ended up by drawing up a report with adverse findings against him. Therefore, the Superintending Engineer, Operation Circle, A.P.S.E.B., Rajahmundry has issued the show cause notice through his memo D.No. 513/98, dated 12.11.1998 adverted to supra. The writ petitioner had filed his explanation thereto on 02.12.1998, requesting the Superintending Engineer to take a sympathetic and compassionate view of the matter and drop the proposed punishment. Instead of finalizing the proceedings, second time around, the show cause notice dated 18.06.1999 has been issued. This, according to the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, Sri V. Venkata Ramana, is unsustainable in law, for, there cannot be successive show cause notices issued for the very same proven misconduct proposing to impose two sets of punishments. Be that as it may, entertaining this Writ Petition, an order was passed on 23.11.1999 by this Court granting interim stay of all further proceedings, pursuant to the impugned memo dated 18.06.1999. While the matter stood thus, the providence intervened and unfortunately, on 08.11.2003, the writ petitioner died. His legal representative has been permitted to come on record and prosecute this Writ Petition. That is how the 2nd petitioner, the wife of the deceased original writ petitioner is prosecuting this Writ Petition. There are several modes known to law to bring about a cessation of the relationship of master and servant. Illustratively put, they are 1) retirement from service on attaining the age of superannuation; 2) premature retirement upon assessment of usefulness of an employee, provided the fundamental rules regulating such employment do provide for such compulsory retirement; 3) retirement on medical invalidation grounds whenever and wherever an employee has lost out on grounds of medical fitness; 4) voluntary retirement with the approval of the competent authority; 5) resignation of the employee; 6) compulsory retirement as a measure of major punishment; 7) removal/dismissal from service as a measure of punishment and 8) unfortunately in the event of the death of the employee. The disciplinary control can be exercised by the employer or his authorized representative only so long as the relationship of master and servant is subsisting. Moment such a relationship is brought to an end, there is no further disciplinary control that can be exercised by any such employer, unless it is a pensionable establishment and the rules regulating the grant of such pension authorize the disciplinary control, post-retirement or death to be allowed to be continued. Sri Venkata Ramana, learned Senior Counsel would submit that the 1st respondent organization has borrowed and adopted the same set of rules, which are framed by the Governor regulating the conditions of grant of pension to the servants of the State of Andhra Pradesh. Hence, Rule 9 of the Andhra Pradesh Revised Pension Rules, 1980 grants liberty to the employer to proceed against a pensioner, notwithstanding the termination of such relationship of master and servant, but however, in the instant case, the Superintending Engineer, Operation Circle, A.P.S.E.B., Rajahmundry was, undoubtedly, being a competent authority to exercise the disciplinary control over employees occupying the rank and status of Bill Collector/L.D.Clerk, has already issued a show cause notice on 12.11.1998 proposing to impose a particular punishment. In exercise of that power, when the Superintending Engineer has issued a show cause notice in its D.No. 513/98, dated 12.11.1998, there is no other alternative except to carry the same to its logical end. There is no power retained for exercising a suo motu revisional power by the disciplinary authority. The disciplinary authority cannot issue successive show cause notices proposing different courses of action each time. When once the competent authority has issued a show cause notice on 12.11.1998 and the employee has shown cause, he is required to apply his mind independently and determine whether the cause shown was satisfactory or not. If he is satisfied that the cause was shown properly, he might take a decision to drop the proposed action. On the other hand, if he is satisfied that the cause has not been properly shown and consequently, action is called for in the matter, it is open to him to confirm the proposed action or even impose any other punishment, which can have a lesser impact. It is a settled principle of law that if a show cause notice is issued proposing to impose a punishment of graver impact, it is open to the disciplinary authority or the proposer to impose a lesser punishment, but he cannot do the vice versa. In the instant case, the competent disciplinary authority, having already issued a show cause notice once proposing to impose the punishment of stoppage of three increments with cumulative effect besides treating the period of suspension as a substantive punishment, he is, therefore, called upon to finalize the same either by imposing the said punishment, if the material on record warrants imposition of such a punishment or make a proper assessment as to the nature of punishment that would meet the offender in keeping with the quantum of guilt established against him. In no case, the disciplinary authority could have imposed a higher punishment than stoppage of three increments with cumulative effect and also treating the period of suspension as a substantive punishment. What could not have been done directly by the same authority, he cannot attempt to do so by issuing another show cause notice, which is the impugned one here i.e. D.No. 502/99, dated 18.06.1999. The impugned show cause notice has referred to the earlier D.No. 513/98, dated 12.11.1998 at reference No. 6, but however, the same was adverted to as not commensurate with the gravity of the charges levelled against the delinquent. The show cause notice issued on 12.11.1998 has neither been rescinded nor was it recalled. It was sought to be characterized as merely non- commensurate with the quantum of guilt held established. Hence, the show cause notice dated 12.11.1998 is subsisting. The show cause notice dated 12.11.1998 is the result of application of mind on the part of the disciplinary authority. He has independently applied his mind to the material on record and came to a provisional conclusion that the punishment of stoppage of three increments with cumulative effect is warranted to be imposed against the petitioner. In the assessment of the disciplinary authority, the quantum of guilt held established against the delinquent employee warrants imposition of the major punishment of stoppage of three increments with cumulative effect. This assessment of imposition of punishment is the result of an independent exercise of mind. Varying and various punishments are listed out as liable to be imposed against the employees for proven misconduct, in Discipline, Control and Appeal Regulations regulating the field. They commence from the minor punishment of censure and end up with dismissal. Therefore, the rule/regulation making authority has accorded enough discretion to the disciplinary authority to independently apply his mind as to which of these punishments would meet the ends of justice and would be commensurate to the quantum of guilt held established in each case. It is also a settled principle of law that the punishment must not only meet the offence but also the offender. Imposition of excessive or harsh punishments themselves reflect an arbitrary and pre-determined approach on the part of the disciplinary authority, which would be fatal to the very exercise of disciplinary control. Therefore, if the Superintending Engineer, Operation Circle, has thought it appropriate to impose the major punishment of stoppage of three increments with cumulative effect by issuing D.No. 513/98, dated 12.11.1998, it would be improper for one to characterize the same as an act which is indulged in mechanically by the competent authority. It is, therefore, for the Superintending Engineer to finalize the said punishment. It is left to him to make an assessment as to whether the proposed punishment itself should be imposed or if a good and reasonably satisfactory cause is shown, a further lesser punishment could have been imposed, but surely, he cannot propose to enhance the punishment to that of dismissal. What could not have been achieved directly cannot be achieved by merely issuing a further show cause notice. The independent exercise carried out by the Superintending Engineer cannot be undone, by a succeeding officer in case there was a change in the incumbency in the meantime. After all, it is not the individual’s satisfaction or put it otherwise, it is not the subjective satisfaction of the individual what matters in disciplinary control, but the objective satisfaction and assessment of the facts and factors that are brought forth on the record of the enquiry, what matters. I am, therefore, satisfied that the second show cause notice issued by the 2nd respondent Superintending Engineer on 18.06.1999 is not sustainable in law. The learned Senior Counsel tried to draw inspiration from the judgment rendered by the Supreme Court in Bachhittar Singh v. State of Punjab[1], wherein it has been held that the entire process of disciplinary proceedings is one continuous proceeding though there are several intermittent stages in between. For the aforesaid reasons, the second show cause notice issued by the 2nd respondent Superintending Engineer bearing D.No. 502/99, dated 18.06.1999 is quashed. Liberty is granted to the 2nd respondent to finalize the disciplinary proceedings initiated against the delinquent employee in terms of the show cause notice bearing D.No. 513/98. dated 12.11.1998 and based upon the material collected on record of the enquiry and from the stand point of view of the parameters fixed in Rule 9 of the Andhra Pradesh revised Pension Rules, 1980. It is needless to observe that the agony of the widow of the delinquent employee will be shortenened by the 2nd respondent by passing orders as expeditiously as possible, but certainly before 15th October 2010 and communicate the same to her, at her latest address to be furnished by her, by way of Registered Post acknowledgment due. With this, the Writ Petition stands allowed. No costs. ---------------------------------- (NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO, J) 30th June 2010 ksld [1] AIR 1963 SC 395