IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI ANIL R. DAVE and HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT APPEAL No.1322 of 2008 (Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the Order dated 28-01-2008 in W.P.No.20455 OF 2007 on the file of the High Court.) Between: 1 Central Power Distribution Company of A.P.Limited rep., by its Chairman & Managing Director, Red Hills, Hyderabad. 2 Central Power Distribution Company of A.P.Limited represented by its Divisional Electrical Engineer, Operation, Bhongir, Nalgonda District. ... APPELLANTS AND T. Vittala Chary, S/o. Venkata Chary, O/o. Assistant Engineer (O), C.P.D.C.L., Rajapet, Bhongir Division, Nalgonda District. ...RESPONDENT Counsel for the Appellants: MR.P.R.BALARAMI REDDY Counsel for the Respondent: MR.B.A.PRAKASH REDDY The Court made the following: Judgment:(Per Hon’ble The Chief Justice) Order dated 28-01-2008 passed by the learned single Judge in W.P.No.20455 of 2007 has been challenged in this appeal. Departmental proceedings had been initiated against the respondent-employee. The enquiry oﬃcer came to the conclusion that the respondent-employee was not guilty of the charges leveled against him, but the disciplinary authority did not agree with the aforesaid ﬁndings arrived at by the enquiry oﬃcer. In spite of the above fact, no notice was given to the respondent-employee indicating the reasons for diﬀering with the ﬁndings recorded by the enquiry officer. Instead, he was called upon to show cause as to why punishment should not be inﬂicted upon him. Ultimately, the respondent-employee was punished and the order of punishment was challenged in the aforesaid writ petition. The petition has been allowed on the ground that it was obligatory on the part of the disciplinary authority, namely, the present appellants to inform the respondent-employee about the reasons for which the disciplinary authority was not in agreement with the view expressed by the enquiry officer. In our opinion, the view expressed by the learned single Judge is just and proper. At this stage, it has been submitted by the learned counsel for the appellants that requisite notice shall be given to the respondent-employee within one month from today. Needless to say that it would be open to the appellant-employer to issue notice to the respondent- employee and proceed further with the enquiry proceedings. Subject to the above clariﬁcation, the appeal is dismissed. _________________ ANIL R. DAVE, CJ. _____________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY, J. October 23, 2008 MRR