IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No. 14860 of 2008 Between: B. Sita Ram Murthy S/o. Late B.Satyanandam O/o. The Visakhapatnam Cooperative Central Stores Ltd., Visakhapatnam, R/o. H.No.22-62-1, Gajula Veedhi, Town Hall Road, Visakhapatnam-1 ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Visakhapatnam Cooperative Central Stores Ltd., ( Super Bazar), Visakhapatnam, rep. by its Managing Director. 2 Sri. M.S.N. Murthy, Additional Registrar, Managing Director, The Visakhaptnam Cooperative Central Stores Ltd., Visakhapatnam. 3 The Government of A.P., rep. by its Commissioner for Cooperation and Registrar of Cooperative Societies, Gruhakalpa Complex, Opp: Gandhi Bhavan, Nampally Station Road, Hyderabad. 4 The district Cooperative Officer, Visakhapatnam District, Visakhapatnam. .....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 more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the proceedings of issuing charge memo vide Rc.No.4/2008/ADM dated 01.07.2008 and also proceedings Rc.No. 3/2008/ADM dated 28.06.2008 in placing the petitioner under suspension as arbitrary, illegal, void, violative of Article 21 and consequently by setting aside the same direct the respondents herein to reinstate the petitioner back into service with all consequential and attendant benefits. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.P.V.L.BHANU PRAKASH Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR COOPERATION The Court made the following ORDER: The petitioner is working as Accounts Officer in Visakhapatnam Cooperative Central Stores Limited, the first respondent herein. Disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him by serving a charge memo, dated 01.07.2008. Three days earlier to that, he was placed under suspension, pending enquiry. The petitioner challenges both the orders. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the charge memo was preceded by a show cause notice, dated 22.04.2008, where under, allegations are made against the petitioner as well as two employees and disciplinary proceedings are confined to the petitioner alone. He contends that specific allegation was made by the petitioner against the Managing Director, who issued the charge memo, and disciplinary proceedings are untenable. It is only with the service of charge memo, that the disciplinary proceedings can be said to have commenced. Any exercise preceding thereto cannot be treated as part thereof and it becomes an exercise of verification of the relevant facts. The petitioner is not able to show any error of jurisdiction or patent illegality in the charge memo. The petitioner has to put forward all his defence in the reply or during the course of departmental enquiry. Having regard to the charges that are levelled against the petitioner, it cannot be said that the suspension pending enquiry is without any basis. The mere fact that the petitioner is scheduled to be retired by the end of July 2008, cannot be a ground to interfere with the impugned orders. Hence, the writ petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY,J Dt:18.07.2008 kdl ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{KSRANI}