THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.28101 of 2009 ORDER: The petitioner is working as Assistant Executive Officer in the District Scheduled Castes Service Cooperative Society Limited, Adilabad (for short ‘the Society’). A Charge Memo, dated 07.03.2005, was issued to him alleging that he resorted to certain acts of misconduct during his tenure as Senior Assistant. As many as five charges were framed. The petitioner submitted his explanation on 21.03.2005. Not satisfied with that, the Executive Director of the Society, respondent No.2 herein, caused domestic enquiry. The Enquiry Officer, submitted his report on 28.09.2005 holding that charge No.5 is proved and other charges, totally or partially, are not proved. A show cause notice proposing the punishment of withholding of two increments with cumulative effect was issued to the petitioner on 21.01.2008. The petitioner submitted his explanation on 07.02.2008. Taking the same into account, the Vice Chairman & Managing Director of the A.P. Scheduled Castes Cooperative Finance Corporation Limited, respondent No.3 herein, passed an order, dated 03.07.2008, imposing the punishment of withholding of two increments with cumulative effect. An appeal was preferred before respondent No.4. The appeal was dismissed. Hence, this writ petition. The petitioner contends that the only charge proved against him was as to some irregularity in sanctioning the amount under Micro Credit Scheme and even that was properly explained. He further contends that respondent No.3 has simply referred to the charges and the findings of the Enquiry Officer and passed the impugned order without applying independent mind. On behalf of the respondents, a counter affidavit is filed. It is stated that the petitioner is not exonerated from all the charges and in fact, charge No.5, which is serious enough, was found to have been proved. According to them, the punishment commensurate with gravity of the charges. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondents. As many as five charges were framed against the petitioner. The one which is proved totally is charge No.5. It was alleged that the petitioner was responsible for sanction of a sum of Rs.60,000/- to the Self Help Group under Micro Credit Scheme. Out of that, Rs.40,000/- was said to be non-recoverable. The explanation offered by the petitioner was that several other officials dealt with the matter and the Society did not incur any loss, since part of it was recovered and part of it was waived by the Government. Respondent No.3 himself proposed the punishment of withholding of two increments with cumulative effect. The petitioner offered his explanation to that. Though the impugned order is fairly elaborate, it is nothing but reproduction of the charges, explanation offered by the petitioner and the charge-wise observation made by the Enquiry Officer. Except making a reference to the show cause notice and the form of submission of explanation by the petitioner, respondent No.3 did not apply his mind at all. Time and again, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that not only the disciplinary authority, but also the appellate authority are under obligation to furnish the reasons in support of their conclusions. Strictly speaking, the impugned order is liable to be set aside and the matter has to go back to respondent No.3 for fresh consideration and disposal. This Court is of the view that the same punishment can be retained, but the cumulative effect can be taken away, so that the matter can be given a quietus. Therefore, the writ petition is partly allowed, directing that the punishment imposed on the petitioner in the impugned order, dated 03.07.2008, shall be treated as the one without cumulative effect. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY,J Dt: 16.11.2010. kdl