THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU WRIT PETITION NO.17660 OF 2011 ORDER: This writ petition is filed seeking to issue writ of mandamus declaring the proceedings in Ref. No. Estt/2011-12, dated 25-05- 2011 and consequential charge memo dated 31-05-2011 issued by the 2nd respondent as illegal and arbitrary and consequently set aside the same. 2. The petitioner was initially appointed as Secretary and thereafter promoted as Supervisor in Krishna District Co-operative Central Bank Ltd.,, Mudinepalli branch (3rd respondent herein) (for short ‘KDCC Bank’). As he was seriously fell ill due to his old age ailments suffering from heart disease and hypertension with severe fever on 02-05-2011, he sent casual leave application to the 3rd respondent bank through his son and the same was accepted by the 3rd respondent. On the advice of the doctor, he took bed rest till 17- 05-2011. On 18-05-2011, when he approached the 3rd respondent and given his joining report, the 3rd respondent issued impugned proceedings placing the petitioner under suspension on the ground that he was taking alcohol in the premises of the bank on 02-05- 2011 and he was directed to hand over his charge without calling for any explanation or without any prior notice before passing the impugned order. Thereafter, on the following day, the 4th respondent issued relieve certificate to him without giving any opportunity to explain that he was not attended duty on 02-05-2011. When he has not attended the duty on 02-05-2011, question of taking alcohol in the bank premises does not arise. But the 2nd respondent issued charge memo stating that he attended the office on 02-05-2011 in a drunken condition and spoiled the image of the bank, which is against the bank rules. Thereafter, he addressed a letter to the 2nd respondent on 07-06- 2011 seeking time to give explanation to the charge memo, but no opportunity was given. The 2nd respondent having accepted the casual leave application on 02-05-2011, which was sent through his son, passed the impugned proceedings placing him under suspension on the ground that he consumed liquor in the bank premises is untenable and the same is liable to be set aside. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that on the date of alleged mis-conduct alleged against the petitioner, the petitioner was on leave, that he sent the leave letter to the bank authorities through his son and therefore, the allegations are totally false. 4. On the other hand, learned standing counsel appearing for the respondents 2 to 4 contended that the report of the Branch Manager would go to show that the petitioner was taking alcohol in the premises of the bank on 02-05-2011, which is against the bank rules and therefore, there are no grounds to interfere with the impugned order. 5. There cannot be any dispute that it is the disciplinary authority, which can take appropriate decision with regard to any mis-conduct alleged against an employee. The mis-conduct alleged against the petitioner is that he consumed alcohol while he was on duty on 02-05-2011. Whether the petitioner came to the bank on that day or not or whether he consumed alcohol or not are the questions of fact which have to be enquired by the Enquiry Officer. The correctness or otherwise of the allegations levelled against the petitioner cannot be tested or weighed exercising the powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, there are no grounds to interfere with the impugned order. 6. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. However, in view of the fact that the alleged mis-conduct is only a single act, the respondents are directed to complete the enquiry within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order after giving reasonable opportunity to the petitioner. No order as to costs. ---------------------- K.C.BHANU, J. DATED: 18-07-2011 Hsd[