THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.20063 of 2011 ORDER: The petitioner was appointed as Deputy General Manager in Small Industries Development Bank of India, the 1st respondent. In the year 2008, he was posted in Visakhapatnam Branch of the Bank. He processed an application for sanction of loan of Rs.1.7 crores to an Industrial undertaking by name AbhiKrishna Papers Private Limited. The 1st respondent initiated proceedings against the petitioner on the ground that the sanction of loan was improper, particularly having regard to the solvency of the agency. The petitioner submitted his explanation and not satisfied with that, the 1st respondent appointed an Enquiry Officer. The 3rd respondent was nominated as the competent authority. In the departmental enquiry, the charge framed against the petitioner was held proved. Taking the same into account, the 3rd respondent issued a show cause notice dated 28.06.2011 directing the petitioner to explain as to why the punishment of compulsory retirement be not imposed against him. It is necessary to mention here that the opinion of the Central Vigilance Commission was also obtained before the said notice was issued. This writ petition is filed challenging the Memorandum of charge dated 05.04.2010 and the subsequent proceedings as illegal, arbitrary, non est and in violation of principles of natural justice. The petitioner contends that the domestic enquiry was initiated on account of the fact that the reports submitted by the officers as regards the value of the assets of the agency that was sanctioned loan was ignored. He further contends that the 3rd respondent is not competent to act as a disciplinary authority. Few other grounds are also urged. On behalf of the respondents, a counter affidavit is filed raising objection as to the maintainability of the writ petition. It is stated that this Court does not have territorial jurisdiction since neither the petitioner nor the respondents are operating or functioning within the state of Andhra Pradesh nor a notice can be assailed. It is further stated that it is not open to the petitioner to challenge the disciplinary proceedings having participated therein to a substantial extent. The assignment of the duties of the competent authority, the 3rd respondent, is justified by making the reference to the relevant provisions of law. Heard Sri N.Vijay, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Sri Dr.K.Lakshminarasimha, learned counsel for the respondent. The primary objection raised by the respondent as to territorial jurisdiction of this Court, need not be taken into account in detail at this stage. It is a matter of record that the petitioner had approached this Court on earlier occasion and the writ petition was entertained. The question as to whether the subsequent change of circumstances disable him from invoking jurisdiction of this Court need to be examined in detail as and when the occasion arises. The petitioner challenges the very initiation of disciplinary proceedings. Though it is urged that the 3rd respondent is not competent to issue charge sheet or to conduct other proceedings, this Court is not inclined to accept that contention. The reason is that the petitioner participated in proceedings to a substantial extent and prima facie the framework under the service rules provide for appointment of a competent authority by the Chairman. Further the definition of Chairman is inclusive and it cannot be said that the disciplinary proceedings must be initiated by the Chairman alone. The record discloses that the disciplinary proceedings initiated against the petitioner have almost reached finality and are at the stage of second show cause notice, where the proposed punishment is indicated. This Court cannot interdict the proceedings at that stage. The petitioner can put forward all his contentions on the merits of the matter i.e., truth or otherwise of the correctness of the enquiry or the jurisdiction of the 3rd respondent to proceed further. There is no reason to believe that the respondent would not take them into account before passing final orders. Any further discussion in this writ petition is likely to have its impact on the further proceedings. Hence, the writ petition is dismissed, leaving it open to the petitioner to urge all the grounds in his explanation that may be submitted to the show cause notice dated 28.06.2011. Two weeks’ time is granted to him for filing the explanation. The respondents 2 and 3 shall take the explanation to be submitted by the petitioner into account before passing the final order. There shall be no order as to costs. __________________________ JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY 12.08.2011 v v