THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU W.P. No. 24315 of 2010 Dated 05–10-2010 Between: Nakka Yeshayya …Petitioner Vs. District Judge, East Godavari District, Rajahmundry and another. …Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU W.P. No. 24315 of 2010 ORAL ORDER: (Per: The Hon’ble Sri Justice Goda Raghuram) The writ petition is by a Field Assistant working in the Court of learned Junior Civil Judge, Prathipadu, East Godavari District and is directed against the proceedings dated 06-08-2010 issued by the 1st respondent – Disciplinary Authority, whereby while communicating the report of the Inquiry Officer dated 14-07-2010, the petitioner is called upon to show cause why the penalty of dismissal of service be not imposed for the two charges of misconduct alleged. It is contended by Sri J. Sudheer, the learned counsel for the petitioner and strenuously that the entire process of inquiry is vitiated, particularly since the Inquiry Officer had earlier submitted a report dated 19-04-2010 which the 1st respondent found to be inadequate and thereafter the 1st respondent returned the report of inquiry to the Inquiry Officer with a direction to submit a fresh report. Meanwhile, the Officer who was IV-Additional District Judge, Kakinada, and who was inquiring as Inquiry Officer had changed and a new officer had come on to the office. The subsequent Officer had furnished a fresh report on the basis of which the present show cause notice is issued to the petitioner calling upon him to submit his explanation. The above process and procedure followed by the 1st respondent is alleged to be in gross transgression of Rule 21 of the Andhra Pradesh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1991 (for short ‘the Rules’). It is not a case of the petitioner, either pleaded or contended that the 1st respondent is incompetent to issue the show cause notice or that the 1st respondent had any bias against the petitioner. In the absence of these two vital factors alleged or established, we find no reason to interfere with a mere show cause notice. All contentions of the petitioner including as to the alleged transgression of the mandate of Rule 21 of the Rules may be submitted in response to the show cause notice and as a part of the petitioner’s explanation thereto. It is submitted by Sri J. Sudheer, learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner did not submit his explanation on account of filing of the writ petition. In the circumstances, the petitioner may submit his explanation within a period of ten (10) days from today and if so submitted shall be considered by the 1st respondent. On the aforesaid analysis, we see no reason to interfere in this writ petition. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed at the stage of admission. No costs. JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU Dated: 05-10-2010 Pvks/*