IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT APPEAL NO: 548 OF 2008 (Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the Order dated 28/03/2008 in Writ Petition No. 21958 of 2003 on the file of the High Court.) Between: 1) The Andhra Pradesh State Cooperative Bank Ltd, Rep. by its Managing Director, Troop Bazar, Hyderabad. 2) The General Body (GB) of APCOB/Appellate Authority, Troop Bazar, Hyderabad. 3) The Committee of Person-in-Charge APCOB/Disciplinary Authority, Troop Bazar , Hyderabad. 4) The Managing Director, A.P. State Cooperative Bank Ltd., Troop Bazar, Hyderabad 5) Commissioner for Co-operation and Registrar of Co-operative Society, Hyderabad. ... APPELLANTS AND 1) A. Visweshwara Reddy S/o. Venkat Reddy Junior Officer/Manager, A.P.State Co-op Bank Co-operative Training Institute (CTI), Rajendra Nagar, Hyderabad. 2) The Commissioner for Cooperation And Registrar of Cooperative Societies, Hyderabad. ...RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Appellant:MR.D.KRISHNA MURTHY Counsel for Respondent No.1: MR.S. LAXMA REDDY Counsel for Respondent No.2: GP FOR COOPERATION The Court made the following: Oral Judgment: (per Shri R. Subhash Reddy, J) 1. This writ appeal is filed by the respondents in Writ Petition No.21958 of 2003 aggrieved by the order of the learned Single Judge dated 28.3.2008. 2. The first respondent was the employee of the appellant bank working as Junior Officer-cum-Manager. During the service, alleging some misconduct on his part, disciplinary proceedings were initiated and a charge sheet dated 03.10.1998 was issued. Mainly, the allegations relate to negligence in screening the loan applications. On submission of the explanation by the first respondent on 29.10.1998/02.11.1998 denying the charges, an enquiry officer was appointed to conduct enquiry in the disciplinary proceedings. The enquiry officer has submitted report by recording the findings that some charges framed against the petitioner were not proved. But, however, the disciplinary authority without giving opportunity to the delinquent employee deferred with the findings of the enquiry officer and straightaway issued show cause notice inviting explanation as to why the punishment of reversion should not be effected. The disciplinary authority, after submission of the explanation, has passed orders reverting the petitioner from the post of Junior Officer-cum-Manager to Staff Assistant. The first respondent herein carried the matter in appeal and the appellate authority while confirming the order of the primary authority modified the punishment from reversion to that of reduction in time scale in the post of Junior Officer-cum-Manager. Challenging the above said orders, the first respondent has filed Writ Petition No.21958 of 2003. Mainly, it was the case before the learned Single Judge that the disciplinary authority having not agreed with the findings of the enquiry officer ought not have issued a show cause notice for reversion without giving reasons for disagreement. The learned Single Judge accepted the said contention in view of the judgments of this High Court in A. Raji Rddy v. Govt. of A.P.[1] and Member-Secretary, Punishing Authority, A.P.S.E.B., Vidyut Soudha v. G. Amruthaiah[2] and allowed the writ petition by setting aside the orders imposing punishment, but, however, taking into account that the first respondent has already attained the age of superannuation, has ordered the punishment of stoppage of three increments with cumulative effect. 3. In this appeal, it is argued by learned counsel Shri D. Krishna Murthy appearing for the appellant bank that as much as the orders under challenge were set aside on the ground of not giving opportunity by disciplinary authority before deferring the findings of the enquiry officer, learned Single Judge ought to have remanded the matter to the disciplinary authority. On the other hand, it is submitted by Shri S. Laxma Reddy appearing for the first respondent employee that as much as the enquiry officer has already recorded some findings in his favour and most of the charges relate to negligence and lapses in processing the loan applications, in order to give a quietus to the litigation, the learned Single Judge has ordered stoppage of three increments with cumulative effect which, thus, will effect substantially the monetary benefits of the petitioner, as such, there are no grounds to interfere with the order of the learned Single Judge. 4. With reference to the above submissions of the learned counsel, though in ordinary course when a disciplinary authority has violated the procedure, such of the matters are to be re-considered by the disciplinary authority, but in the instant case, having regard to the nature of charges and as there is no dispute with regard to the fact that no further opportunity was given by the disciplinary authority, the learned Single Judge rightly set aside the orders under challenge. But, however, further taking into account the age of the first respondent, who has already attained the age of superannuation, the learned Single Judge ordered for stoppage of three increments. In view of the peculiar facts of this case, as it is stated that the delinquent employee has already retired from service on 31.5.2008, we do not find any error in the order passed by the learned Single Judge. We do not find any merit in the appeal and it is accordingly dismissed. R. SUBHASH REDDY, J June 27, 2008 ANIL R. DAVE, CJ svs ........REGISTRAR To 1. 2.2 CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WA {VSMI} [1] 2001 (5) ALT 46 (DB) [2] 2001 (4) ALD 240