IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE TWELFTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI ANIL R. DAVE AND HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY WRIT APPEAL No.553 of 2008 (Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the Order dated 11.04.2008 in Writ Petition No.22984 of 2004 on the file of the High Court.) Between: P. Vara Prasad, S/o. P. Ganga Raju, Senior Inspecting Officer APSWCS Ltd. (APCO), Tirupathi, R/o. 26-104/2/2, Balaramanagar, Safilguda, Hyderabad. .....Appellant And The Vice-Chariman & Managing Director, The A.P. State Handloom Weavers Co-operative Society Ltd. (APCO), Weavers Bhavan, Narayanaguda, Hyderabad. .....Respondent Counsel for the appellant : Sri M. Panduranga Rao Counsel for the respondent : Sri Ch. Jagannadha Rao The Court made the following: JUDGMENT: (per Anil R. Dave, C.J.) Order dated 11th April, 2008 passed in Writ Petition No.22984 of 2004 has been challenged in this petition by the original petitioner – employee of the respondent. Learned Advocate, Sri M. Panduranga Rao, appearing for the appellant has made only one short submission. It has been stated by him that by virtue of the interim order, the learned Single Judge has remitted the matter for imposing lesser punishment upon the appellant. It has been submitted by the learned Advocate that if the appellant can make out a case to the effect that no punishment is warranted, then also possibly the respondent – employer might have to impose punishment as the learned Single Judge has remitted the matter with an observation to the effect that lesser punishment be imposed. In the circumstances, it has been submitted by the learned Advocate that the respondent authority may be given discretion either to impose lesser punishment or no punishment if such a case has been made out before the respondent authority by the appellant employee. Upon hearing the learned Advocate for the appellant and looking to the facts of the case, we are inclined to agree with the submission made by him. In the circumstances, the impugned order is modified to the effect that if upon hearing the appellant employee, the respondent authority is satisfied that there is no case for imposing punishment, it would be open to the respondent not to impose any punishment upon the appellant employee. In other words, after hearing the appellant, the respondent may impose lesser punishment or may not impose any punishment. Subject to the aforesaid modifications, the appeal stands disposed of as partly allowed with no order as to costs. ANIL R. DAVE, C.J. 12th June, 2008 R.SUBHASH REDDY, J. ….REGISTRAR To 1. The Vice-Chariman & Managing Director, A.P. State Handloom Weavers Co-operative Society Ltd. (APCO), Weavers Bhavan, Narayanaguda, Hyderabad. 2. Two C.D. copies. ARS