IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION No. 22763 OF 2009 Between A.Hafeez ..... PETITIONER AND 1. The APSRTC REP.By its Managing Director, Musheerabad, Hyderabad. 2. The Regional Manager, APSRTC, Mahaboobnagar Region at Mahaboobnagar. 3. The Depot Manager, APSRTC, Wanaparty, Mahaboobnagar District. .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner: Counsel for the Respondents: The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE JUSTICE MS. G. ROHINI WRIT PETITION No.22763 of 2009 ORDER: The petitioner is working as a Conductor in Wanaparty Depot, A.P.S.R.T.C. On the basis of certain cash and ticket irregularities allegedly committed by the petitioner on 31.03.2009, a charge sheet was issued to the petitioner on 30.04.2009. Subsequently, an enquiry officer was appointed and the petitioner had participated in the enquiry. It is also not in dispute that a copy of the report of the enquiry officer, dated 05.08.2009, was furnished to the petitioner. Thereafter, respondent No.3-disciplinary authority issued a show cause notice, dated 12.10.2009, calling upon the petitioner to show cause as to why the proposed penalty of removal from service shall not be imposed. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition is filed contending inter alia that the action of the respondents in issuing the charge sheet one month after the alleged incident and proceeding on all false and baseless allegations amounts to arbitrary and malicious exercise of power. It is also contended that the conclusions arrived at in the impugned show cause notice that the petitioner was guilty of the charge framed is unsustainable. It is also contended that as per the circular instructions dated 24.07.1995 issued by the Corporation, certain time limit has been prescribed for scrutiny of the Service Registers by the unit officers and therefore the charge sheet dated 30.04.2009 on the basis of the alleged incident on 31.03.2009 being contrary to the circular instructions of the Corporation is illegal. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned standing counsel appearing for the Corporation. As per Regulation 12(13) of the A.P.S.R.T.C. Classification, Control and Appeal Regulations, 1967 (for short ‘the Regulations’), the authority competent to impose the penalty, after determining what penalty should be imposed on the employee, should give an opportunity to the employee to show cause as to why the said penalty should not be imposed. Apparently the impugned show cause notice dated 12.10.2009 has been issued in terms of the said Regulations. The law is well settled that where it is proposed to inflict the punishment of dismissal or removal for any misconduct and a notice is given in writing to the delinquent to show-cause within a specified period why the proposed punishment may not be awarded, it is open to him to show that the findings of the enquiring officer are not justified on the evidence on record or that even if the findings, are justified, they do not warrant the extreme penalty of dismissal from service having regard to the nature or gravity of the misconduct, the past record of the workman and any other extenuating circumstances vide M/S.Lakmirattan Cotton Mills Co.Ltd., v. Its Workmen[1] In the light of the settled law, I am of the opinion that the petitioner cannot challenge the findings of the disciplinary authority at this stage before this Court. Instead, he could have raised all his objections in the explanation to the impugned show cause notice. Accordingly, without going into the merits of the case, the writ petition is disposed of permitting the petitioner to submit his explanation to the impugned show cause notice, if not already submitted, within a period of three weeks from today. Thereafter the respondents shall consider the same and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. No order as to costs. ________________ JUSTICE G. ROHINI Note: Issue C.C. tomorrow (B/o) Ivd AIR 1975 SUPREME COURT 1689