THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU W.P.No.15875 of 2011 ORDER: This writ petition is filed to declare the impugned memo dated 11.04.2011 issued by the second respondent as illegal and arbitrary and consequently to set aside the same. 2. The brief facts that are necessary for disposal of the writ petition may be stated as follows: The petitioner was initially appointed as Assistant Engineer (Trainee) in the respondent – Corporation on 08.04.2002 and was promoted as Assistant Divisional Engineer on 08.12.2008. He applied for earned leave from 03.12.2007 to 22.12.2007 due to ill health and personal problems. As he could not recover from illness, he extended the leave from time to time. Consequent upon his recovery, he joined duty on 07.01.2009 after obtaining reposting orders. At that juncture, the second respondent issued memo dated 08.04.2009 appointing the fifth respondent as an Enquiry Officer with a direction to frame the necessary charge and to conduct enquiry. Basing on the said memo, the fifth respondent issued memo dated 13.05.2009 to the petitioner framing the charge against him alleging that he was absent from duty for more than one year i.e., from 03.12.2007 to 06.01.2009 and such an action amounts to misconduct for which the penalty of removal from service can be imposed as per G.O.O.No.24/Js(per)/2008 dated 23.04.2008. Consequent upon receipt of the charge memo, the petitioner submitted his explanation dated 29.05.2009 categorically pleading that only on account of his ill-health and other family problems, he applied for the leave. Thereafter, the fifth respondent directed the petitioner to appear before him on 25.06.2009. On appearance, his statement was obtained by the fifth respondent in the form of questions and answers and enquiry was closed. The fifth respondent submitted his report on 14.07.2009. Basing on the above report of the enquiry officer dated 14.07.2009, the second respondent issued the memo dated 11.04.2011 seeking to impose the penalty of removal from service. It is the case of the petitioner that the service conditions of the employees of the first respondent-Corporation are governed by Discipline and Appeal Regulations. Regulation 5 of Andhra Pradesh State Electricity Board Service Regulations, which have been adopted by the first respondent-Corporation, mandates the procedure of enquiry and also the penalities to be imposed. The GOO No.24, dated 23.04.2008 is only an administrative instruction, which stipulates that every employee who unauthorisedly absents from duty for more than one year is liable to be removed from service. Under statutory regulations, there is no such condition incorporated. It is the case of the petitioner that by following an administrative instruction vide GOO No.24, dated 23.04.2008, the respondents cannot ignore the statutory regulations and he cannot be removed from service. Therefore, the impugned memo dated 11.04.2011 is liable to be set aside. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the Chief General Manager (Admn), the second respondent herein, has no authority to issue a show cause notice to the petitioner and that no proper enquiry was conducted and therefore, impugned memo has to be set aside. 4. On the other hand, the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents contended that the Managing Director of the respondent – Corporation is the competent authority to examine the entire case; that the show cause notice does not suffer from any infirmities and that the enquiry was conducted properly. According to him, a charge memo was issued to the petitioner as he was absent from duty from 03.12.2007 to 06.01.2009 and after calling for the written explanation, the enquiry officer submitted his report; that the enquiry report and other connected material were placed before the Chief General Manager, who examined the case of the petitioner and has come to the provisional conclusion of imposing punishment of removal from service against the petitioner for his unauthorised absence and therefore, he was issued the show cause notice. 5. Insofar as competency of respondent No.2 is concerned to issue the impugned memo, no doubt, the Managing Director of Andhra Pradesh Power Generation Corporation Limited is the competent authority to take any disciplinary action against the Assistant Divisional Engineer. Show Cause Notice was issued by the Chief General Manager (Administration)- respondent No.2 though he has no power to issue the same. The Chief General Manager (Administration) has issued the show cause notice calling for the explanation of the petitioner so as to place the matter before the Managing Director. It is only a show cause notice. If the petitioner wants to give his explanation to the show cause notice, he is at liberty to give his explanation. Since all the papers including the enquiry report were placed before the Managing Director, the Managing Director after examination of the case in its entirety, has provisionally came to the conclusion to impose the penalty of removal from service for the misconduct of unauthorised absence of the petitioner. Therefore, it is not as though the Chief General Manager has given this notice after perusing the enquiry report. So, it can be treated as notice issued by the Managing Director so that the petitioner can submit his explanation to the Managing Director. Thereafter, the Managing Director shall consider the case and take appropriate decision in accordance with law. 6. The writ petition is devoid of merits and it is liable to be dismissed. The writ petition is dismissed accordingly. No costs. Since it is represented that the time for submitting the explanation has expired, the petitioner is permitted to submit his explanation within a period of three weeks from today. K.C.BHANU,J Dt. 15.06.2011 lvl THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU W.P.No.15875 of 2011 Dated: 15-06-2011