IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE SECOND DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 25177 of 2007 Between: S. Raghu Prasad S/o. Late Shiva Sastry India, Hubli (Under the Zonal Office, Hyderabad) ..... PETITIONER AND The Central Bank of India, Rep.by its Assistant General Manager, Hyderabad Zonal Office, Bank Street, Koti, Hyderabad. .....RESPONDENT 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 to issue a writ or Order more in nature of Mandamus in declaring the action of the respondent in not supplyinj the documents-Annexure-III to the Memorandum ZO: HRD:DAD:2007- 08:1847 dt. 1-11-07 and not granting extension of time for submitting petitioner explanation/Written Statement of defence to the above Memorandum and directing the Petitioner to submit his explanation with in 7 days as illegal, arbitrary unjust violation of principles natural justice denial of reasonable opportunity and against the Central Bank of India Oficer's Employees (Discipline and Appeal) Regulations 1976 more so Regulation 6 and consequentially direct the respondent to communicate list of the documents (Annexure III) to the Memorandum ZO: HRD:DAD:2007-08:1847 dt. 1-11-07 and to extend the time for submission of written statement of defence/explanation to the Charge Memo by verifying the records dt. 1-11-07 and thereafter conduct the regular departmental enquiry. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.K.R.SRINIVAS Counsel for the Respondents: MR.CH.SIVA REDDY The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 25177 of 2007 ORDER: The petitioner is working as a Manager in the Central Bank of India. Initially, a memo, dated 28.12.2006 was issued to him, pointing out certain alleged irregularities. This was followed by a charge memo, dated 01.11.2007, whereunder, articles of charge and statement are incorporated. Annexure-III to the memo, dated 01.11.2007, contained a list of documents and witnesses. The petitioner states that he made a request to the respondents to furnish the list of documents mentioned in Annexure-III and approached this Court, complaining that his request was not acceded to. The respondents have since filed a counter affidavit, stating that not only the documents mentioned in Annexure-III were furnished to the petitioner, but also he had submitted an explanation on 08.01.2008. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondents. The only grievance of the petitioner is about the non-furnishing of the documents mentioned in Annexure- III to memo, dated 01.11.2007. It appears that at a later point of time, the documents have been furnished and on the basis of the same, the petitioner has submitted his explanation. Therefore, nothing remains in this writ petition and it is, accordingly, dismissed as infructuous. There shall be no order as to costs. _________ 02.04.2008 JSU ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{VSMI} THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 25177 of 2007 Date: 02.04.2008 JSU