THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.14817 of 2011 ORDER: The petitioner is working as an employee in Tirumala Tirupathi Devasthanam. Disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him alleging acts of indiscipline. Initially, a charge memo with ten articles of charges was issued on 20.03.2009. The petitioner contends that he made a representation for furnishing of documents in support of the charges and nothing ensued thereafter. According to him, another charge sheet was issued with six articles of charges on 19.01.2010. Respondent No.2 was appointed as an Enquiry Officer. It appears that the petitioner did not participate in the enquiry by applying for medical leave. A report was submitted by respondent No.2 on 27.12.2010 holding that the charges framed against the petitioner are proved. On receipt of the report, the petitioner submitted his explanation on 26.01.2011. This writ petition is filed challenging the report submitted by respondent No.2 on 27.12.2010. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the very enquiry is vitiated on account of the fact that the documents pertaining to the charges were not furnished to the petitioner and that no opportunity was given to him in the enquiry. Heard the learned counsel for the respondents. The occasion for this Court to interfere with the report of an Enquiry Officer arises only when the enquiry is conducted by a person who is not vested with the jurisdiction. The petitioner did not raise any objection for the appointment of respondent No.2 as Enquiry Officer. It may be true that the petitioner did not participate in the enquiry for his own reasons. Having waited sufficiently, respondent No.2 proceeded to conduct enquiry and submit his report. The matter did not end at that. The petitioner submitted a detailed explanation/representation on 21.01.2011 dealing with each and every charge. It is for the appointing authority to take the same into account and to pass further orders. The petitioner can be said to have suffered any grievance, if only any orders adverse to his interest are passed by the appointing authority. In the challenge to such orders, he can raise the grounds pertaining to the legality or otherwise of the enquiry also. Hence, the writ petition is dismissed, leaving it open to the petitioner to pursue further remedies, depending on the outcome of the consideration of the explanation submitted by the petitioner by the appointing authority. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY,J Dt:02.08.2011 kdl