THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI WRIT PETITION No.2528 OF 2010 Dated: 10.02.2010 Between: M.S.R. Krishna … Petitioner And The Andhra Pradesh Dairy Development Corporation Federation Limited, rep. by its Managing Director, Lalapet, Hyderabad. … Respondent THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI WRIT PETITION No.2528 OF 2010 ORDER : The petitioner herein is working as L.D. Accountant in the respondent Federation. On the allegations of misappropriation of funds, he was placed under suspension pending enquiry vide proceedings of the 1st respondent dated 19.04.2004. On 22.11.2005 a charge-sheet was issued framing charges as under : Articles of Charges That, the said Sri M. Seetaramakrishna while working as L.D. Accountant at Head Office had allegedly committed the following acts of misconduct as defined under Rule 27 (2) (6) (7) (20) (26) and (39) of APDDCF Certified Standing Orders viz: Rule 27 (2): Fraud of dishonesty in connection with the Federation’s business or property. (6): Negligence or neglect of duty. (7): Taking or giving bribe or any illegal gratification or indulging in corrupt practices. (20): Breach of any law applicable to the work. (26): Breach of any standing order. (39): Breach of rules and regulations, instructions, practices, conventions, methods, and procedures etc., applicable to the Fedn. for regulating work. Simultaneous, criminal proceedings were also initiated against the petitioner vide Cr.No.395 of 2008 on the file of Osmania University Police Station, Hyderabad, under Section 420, 471, 468, 409 and 34 of I.P.C. In response to the petitioner’s representations dated 15.12.2005 and 28.1.2006 requesting to permit him to peruse the connected records so as to enable him to submit his explanation to the charge-sheet, the respondent had permitted him to peruse the relevant record on any working day during office hours and submit his explanation by 28.3.2006. The petitioner by letter dated 18.3.2006 had again made a request to permit him to bring any outsider/Lawyer for the perusal of the records and to obtain Xerox copies so that he could submit his explanation to the charge-sheet. Having accepted the said request, the respondent had permitted the petitioner to submit his explanation by 30.04.2006. The petitioner again by letter dated 28.4.2006 sought permission to bring / authorize an outsider / Lawyer to peruse the records since he was not fully conversant with the connected matter. He was accordingly permitted to peruse the records on any working day in the Chambers of General Manager (P&A), with the assistance of outsider/Lawyer before 25.08.2006 and to submit his explanation on or before 1.9.2006. It is not in dispute that the petitioner along with his Lawyer visited the office of the respondent on 24.8.2006 and 26.8.2006. Since the concerned clerk was not available at that time, the petitioner was again granted permission to peruse the records with the assistance of outsider/Lawyer on or before 8.9.2006 and to submit his explanation by 12.09.2006. Accordingly, the petitioner perused the records and thereafter requested to furnish copies of certain documents. On 19.9.2006 copies of the documents were furnished to him. Ultimately the petitioner submitted his explanation on 29.9.2006 stating that the respondent shall await the final result of the criminal proceedings. The respondent Corporation, having not accepted the said contention, by proceedings dated 30.10.2006 appointed an Enquiry Officer to hold an enquiry into the charges levelled against the petitioner. The petitioner had participated in the enquiry and the Enquiry Officer submitted his Enquiry Report dated 7.8.2008 stating that out of 43 charges 35 charges were held proved against the petitioner. Basing on the said enquiry report, the Disciplinary Authority – Managing Director of the Corporation issued a show-cause notice dated 16.01.2010 directing the petitioner to show-cause as to why proposed punishment of dismissal from service besides recovery of Rs.15,44,150/- should not be imposed on him. The said action of the respondent Corporation is under challenge in this writ petition contending inter alia that the action of the respondent in straightaway issuing the show-cause notice without furnishing a copy of enquiry report is contrary to the principles of natural justice. It is also alleged that where as the charge-sheet dated 22.11.2005 contains only one charge, the impugned notice shows that out of 43 charges 35 charges were held proved. It is also apparent from the impugned notice that the respondent had already arrived at a conclusion to impose a major punishment on the petitioner. It is further contended that the petitioner’s request for engaging the assistance of a Lawyer to represent him in the enquiry proceedings was not considered and he was only permitted to engage a co-employee and that the said action also amounts to violation of principles of natural justice. It is alleged that he was also not paid subsistence allowance after July, 2005 which amounts to violation of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and having perused the material available on record, I do not find any justifiable ground warranting interference by this Court at this stage. The law is well-settled that the right to show-cause against the penalty also implies the right to represent against the findings on the charges. Hence, even assuming that the enquiry conducted against the petitioner suffered from any infirmity and no reasonable opportunity was given to the petitioner vitiating the findings, it is always open to him to raise such objection in his explanation to the impugned show- cause notice dated 16.01.2010. Accordingly, while granting liberty to the petitioner to submit such explanation within two weeks from today, the Writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents to consider the explanation, if any, submitted by the petitioner within the time fixed above, independently without being influenced by the decision said to have been taken in the 175th Board Meeting dated 29.12.2009 to impose punishment of dismissal from service. No costs. _____________ G. ROHINI, J. Dt. 10.02.2010 gbs