THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY Writ Petition No. 27158 of 2010 ORDER: The petitioner was employed as Post-graduate Teacher in Hindi by the A.P. Tribal Welfare Residential Educational Institution Society, the 2nd respondent herein. He was placed as full additional charge of Principal of the Institution at Bhadragiri of Vizianagaram District. A charge-memo was issued on 18-09-2009, alleging that the petitioner has not attended to his duties from 11-09-2009 to 14-09-2009, and though he was required to attend a training camp at Hyderabad, from 07-09-2009 to 09-09-2009, he left the institution on 05-09-2009 itself, without prior permission. The petitioner submitted his explanation to the charge-memo. Taking the same into account, the Project Officer, I.T.D.A., Parvathipuram, the 1st respondent herein, passed an order dated 30-09-2009, imposing the minor punishment of censure under Rule 9(1) of the A.P.C.S and C.C.A. Rules, 1991 (for short ‘the Rules’). The petitioner filed an appeal against the order of censure before the 2nd respondent. Through an order dated 08-07-2010, the 2nd respondent took the view that the 1st respondent did not follow the correct procedure; the procedure for major punishment ought to have been followed, and accordingly, has not only set aside the order dated 30-09-2009, but also directed the 1st respondent to follow the procedure for imposition of major punishment, as laid down in Rue 20 of the Rules. The petitioner challenges the said order. Heard Sri V.H.V.R.R. Swamy, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Durga Prasad, learned counsel for the respondents. The 1st respondent imposed the minor punishment of censure against the petitioner, after issuing charge-sheet and considering the explanation. The matter went before the 2nd respondent, in the form of an appeal, presented by the petitioner. In case the 2nd respondent did not find any merit in the appeal, filed by the petitioner, he ought to have rejected the same. It is only when the relevant Service Rules confer suo motu powers upon the Appellate Authorities, that they can call for the file from the original authority, and pass appropriate orders, which, according to them, would meet the ends of justice. If a more severe punishment is to be imposed, the concerned employee must be issued a show cause notice. The question of an appellate authority passing an order, detrimental to the appellant, that too, in the appeal filed by the concerned employee, does not arise. The 2nd respondent did not cite any provision, under which he has chosen to direct the 1st respondent to resume the process, and follow the procedure, prescribed under Rule 20 of the Rules. He does not appear to have realized that he was dealing with an appeal, preferred by the petitioner herein, and not a suo motu power of review, or revision, under any provision of law. The impugned order, in so far as it directed the 1st respondent to conduct enquiry, afresh; is wholly without jurisdiction. Hence, the writ petition is allowed, and the impugned order passed by the 2nd respondent is set aside. The matter is remanded to the 2nd respondent for fresh consideration and disposal. It is directed that the 2nd respondent shall examine the appeal preferred by the petitioner, on merits, and if he finds any reason to interfere with the order passed by the 1st respondent, grant necessary relief to the petitioner, and if he finds that there are no grounds to interfere with it, simply dismiss the appeal. There shall be no order as to costs. ________________________ L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J. Dt. 08-11-2010. KO