IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTIETH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No. 15794 of 2008 Between: D. Obulaiah, S/o. Ramaiah, Gooti Branch, Andhra Pragathi Grameena Bank, R/o. D.No. 4/1513, Kalyan Durg Road, Anantapur. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Andhra Pragathi Grameena Bank, Rep by its Chairman, Head Office, at P.B. No. 65, Kadapa - 516 001. 2 The General Manager Cum Competent Authority, Andhra Pragathi Grameena Bank, Head Office, P.B. No. 65, Kadapa - 516 001. 3 Sri B.S. Subramanyam, The General Manager, Andhra Pragathi Grameena Bank, Head Office, P.B. No. 65, Kadapa - 516 001. .....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 any writ, order or direction particularly one in the nature of MANDAMUS declaring the memorandum vide Ref.No. 123/STF/A/SO/1523/08 dated 31-1-2008 in placing the petitioner under suspension and also charge memo under Ref.NO. 15/STF/IR/1523/08 dt. 10-3-2008 as arbitrary, illegal, without jurisdiction and order his reinstatement by nullifying the same. Counsel for the Petitioner: DR.P.B.VIJAY KUMAR Counsel for the Respondents: MR.K.SRINIVASA MURTHY The Court made the following ORDER: The petitioner is working as a Messenger in Andhra Pragathi Grammena Bank. Vide Memorandum, dated 31.01.2008, the General Manager-cum-Competent Authority placed the petitioner under suspension, on certain allegations of misconduct. The petitioner challenges the impugned order, mainly on the ground that, in accordance with the relevant Service Rules, the third respondent was named as competent authority, whereas, the impugned order was passed by an Officer, by name, Sri I.S.R.Anjaneyulu. Reliance is also placed upon an interim order passed by a Division Bench of this Court in W.A.M.P.No.1007 of 2008 in W.A.No.473 of 2008, dated 23.06.2008. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. The only ground on which the impugned order is challenged is that it was passed by an authority, not vested with the power. In the administrative set up by the first respondent Bank, an Officer of a particular category is to be named as an authority to initiate and conclude disciplinary proceedings. It is not in dispute that one Sri B.S.Subrahmanyam, the third respondent, was nominated for this purpose. If the matters were to have rested at that, the contention of the petitioner could, certainly, have been accepted. In fact, a Division Bench of this Court stayed the order of suspension passed against an employee, by name, Sri Adinarayana, on this short ground. The learned Standing Counsel for the respondents has placed before this Court, a copy of the administrative order, dated 29.01.2008. It reads as under: “As Sri B.S.Subrahmanyam, General Manager (Personnel) will be away from Headquarters from 30.01.2008 to 01.02.2008 to attend to official work, and applied leave on 02.02.2008. Sri I.S.R.Anjaneyulu, General Manager (Credit), is advised to look after the Departments currently handled by Sri B.S.Subrahmanyam. Further, it is informed that Sri I.S.R.Anjaneyulu, General Manager (Credit), will be the Disciplinary Authority and he shall henceforth initiate/dispose of the Disciplinary actions/matters relating to the employees of the Bank, during the above period in terms of Regulation No.2(i) of Staff (Officers & Employees) Service Regulations, 2006.” From this, it is evident that the General Manager (Credit), by name, Sri I.S.R.Anjaneyulu was conferred with the power of disciplinary authority for the period between 30.01.2008 to 01.02.2008. The impugned order was passed on 31.01.2008 by the Officer, who was conferred with such power. It appears that the administrative order, dated 29.01.2008, was not brought to the notice of the Division Bench, when it passed the order, dated 23.06.2008. Since it had emerged that the authority, who passed the impugned order, was conferred with the power under the administrative order, dated 29.01.2008, the contention of the petitioner cannot be accepted. Hence, the writ petition is dismissed. It is directed that the disciplinary proceedings initiated against the petitioner shall be concluded, within a period of three (3) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs. __________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY,J Dt:20.08.2008 kdl