THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI WRIT PETITION No.23582 OF 2009 Dated: 04.11.2009 Between: M. Shyam Sunder … Petitioner And Transmission Corporation of Andhra Pradesh Ltd., Rep. By its Chairman and Managing Director, Vidyut Soudha, Khairatabad, Hyderabad And another … Respondents THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI WRIT PETITION No.23582 OF 2009 ORDER : This writ petition is filed seeking a declaration that the impugned memo dated 5.10.2009 issued by the 2nd respondent differing with the findings of the Enquiry Officer as arbitrary, illegal and consequently to set aside the same. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the material on record. The petitioner herein is working as Junior Accounts Officer with the Transmission Corporation of Andhra Pradesh Limited. Alleging that the petitioner had misappropriated the Board’s funds, disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the petitioner in accordance with APSEB Employees Discipline and Appeal Regulations as adopted by the APTRANSCO. At the outset, is to be noticed that the impugned memo dated 5.10.2009 is nothing but a show-cause notice issued by the 2nd respondent, who is the disciplinary authority, calling upon the petitioner to show-cause as to why the findings of the Enquiry Officer in the reports dated 14.06.2007 and 26.3.2009 should not be differed. The grounds upon which the findings of the Enquiry Officer have been disagreed by the 2nd respondent have also been specified in the impugned notice. The learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that there is absolutely no justifiable reason to disagree with the two enquiry reports and to continue the disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner. It is also contended that the respondents have no power or authority to order successive enquiries on the same set of allegations in spite of the fact that the enquiry officer in his report found that the charges against the petitioner were not proved. The learned counsel for the petitioner, while submitting that the petitioner was placed under suspension in the year 1994 and even after 15 years there is no finality to the enquiry initiated against him, contended that the impugned memo has been issued only to drag on the proceedings and to harass the petitioner. As noticed above, the impugned memo is nothing but a show- cause notice in which the grounds upon which the 2nd respondent has disagreed with the findings of the enquiry officer were specifically mentioned. In the circumstances, it is open to the petitioner to submit all his objections both on facts and law. As a matter of fact, there is no adverse order as on today and therefore the writ petition itself is premature and the interference by this Court at this stage is not warranted on any ground whatsoever. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs. _____________ G. ROHINI, J. Dt. 04.11.2009 gbs THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI WRIT PETITION No.23582 OF 2009 Dated:04.11.2009