IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE TWENTIETH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No. 12828 of 2008 Between: G.V. Reddy S/o. G. Chandra Reddy H.No. 27185/Hyd-1 Depot, R/o. H.No. 3-3-295, L.B.Nagar, Hyderabad. ..... PETITIONER AND The Depot Manager, APSRTC, Hyderabad-I Depot, Gowliguda, Hyderabad. .....RESPONDENT 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 order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ declaring the action of the Respondent in issuing of show cause notice of removal from service No. 01/2(20)/07-H1 dt. 9-6-208 with predetermination by giving in advance his Opinion in Joint Action Committee report dt. 25-1-2008 along with DM/Hyd-II against the Petitioner holding him responsible for cause of accident and nominating lower tank officer i.e, AM (T) to conduct domestic enquiry who being subordinate officer followed the Joint action committee report findings and opinion without applying his own mind independently is as illegal, unjust contrary to law and violative of principles of natural justice by setting aside the show cause notice of removal from service and granting all consequential benefits and direct the respondents to take the petitioner into service. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.MOHD.GHOUSEUDDIN Counsel for the Respondent: K.MADHAVA REDDY(SC FOR APSRTC) The Court made the following ORDER: The petitioner is employed as a Driver in A.P.S.R.T.C. On 22.12.2007, he has driven a bus on the route from Mumbai to Hyderabad. The bus hit a lady pedestrian, causing her death. The incident was got inspected by the Assistant Manager of Hyderabad-I Depot. On the basis of the opinion expressed by the Assistant Manager, a Joint Accident Committee, comprising of the respondent and the Depot Manager, Hyderabad-II, issued proceedings, dated 25.01.2008, directing that the petitioner be placed under suspension. Thereafter, a charge sheet was issued on 28.01.2008, directing the petitioner to submit explanation. On a consideration of the explanation submitted by the petitioner, the respondent appointed an Enquiry Officer. A report was submitted on 09.04.2008, holding that the charges levelled against the petitioner are proved. The respondent accepted the report and issued show cause notice, dated 09.06.2008, directing the petitioner to explain as to why he shall not be imposed the penalty of removal from service. The same is challenged in this writ petition. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the very initiation of disciplinary proceedings is defective and illegal, inasmuch as the respondent participated in the preliminary steps and had formed an opinion. He contends that the respondent cannot act as an Enquiry Authority as well as Disciplinary Authority. The learned Standing Counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, submits that the proceedings were not vitiated in any manner, inasmuch as except taking stock of the situation, the respondent did not express any opinion as to the objections of the petitioner. He also contends that when it is permissible in law of the same official to act as an Enquiry Authority as well as Disciplinary Authority, no exception can be taken to the present set of proceedings. The disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the petitioner with service of a charge sheet. This was preceded by a preliminary enquiry and suspension of the petitioner. The basis for initiation of the proceedings was the report submitted by the Assistant Manager of the Depot, who conducted a spot inspection. A detailed disciplinary enquiry is conducted by the Enquiry Officer. The contention of the petitioner is that the respondent is not competent in law to continue the proceedings, inasmuch as he together with the Depot Manager of Hyderabad-II submitted a report holding that the petitioner is guilty of negligence. The ultimate departmental enquiry was conducted by appointing an Enquiry Officer. It is permissible in law for the Disciplinary authority himself to act as an Enquiry Officer. Therefore, it cannot be said that the respondent reeled under any disqualification in law. Further, the opinion expressed by him in the joint report is only preliminary in nature, to constitute the basis for further steps. In case the petitioner had any serious objection for the institution of the proceedings by the respondent, he ought to have raised the same at the initial stage itself. It is not permissible for him to raise the same at this stage, after a report is submitted by an Enquiry Officer. This Court is not inclined to interfere with the show cause notice. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. __________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY,J Dt:20.06.2008. Kdl ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{VSMI}