IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) PRESENT: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY SATURDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF APRIL, TWO THOUSAND NINE ONLY WRIT PETITION Nos.19848 AND 19855 OF 2008 WRIT PETITION Nos.19848 OF 2008 Between: Sri B.Shasidhar. … Petitioner. And Bharat Dynamics Limited (A Government of India Enterprises), Ministry of Defence, Kanchanbagh, Hyderabad, reptd., by its Chairman & Managing Director and another. … Respondents . WRIT PETITION Nos.19855 OF 2008 Between: Sri K.Raghava Rao. … Petitioner. And Bharat Dynamics Limited (A Government of India Enterprises), Ministry of Defence, Kanchanbagh, Hyderabad, reptd., by its Chairman & Managing Director and another. … Respondents Counsel for the petitioners: Sri G.Vidyasagar. (Both the cases) Counsel for the respondents: Sri S.R.Ashok, Senior Counsel, (Both the cases) assisted by Sri P.Bhasker. This Court made the following: COMMON ORDER:- These two Writ Petitions are taken up for hearing and disposal, at the interlocutory stage, with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties. The short issue that arises for consideration in these Writ Petitions is whether issue of fresh appointment orders to the petitioners as Technical Assistants, who have earlier resigned to the said posts, constitutes misconduct under Standing Orders 26(2) and 26(8) of the respondents. On the premise that such an action constitutes misconduct, disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the petitioners by issuing charge sheets. The petitioners filed their respective explanations and the enquiry officers appointed for this purpose held enquiry. On the basis of the enquiry reports, show-cause notices were issued to the petitioners. At that stage, the petitioners filed these two Writ Petitions questioning not only the said show- cause notices, but also the charge sheets. At the hearing, Sri G.Vidyasagar, learned counsel for the petitioners, submitted that initiation of disciplinary proceedings is wholly misconceived because acceptance of fresh employment by the petitioners does not fall foul of either of the two standing orders referred to above and, consequently, no misconduct can be attributed to the petitioners. Sri S.R.Ashok, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondents, candidly submitted that the act complained against the petitioners in accepting fresh appointments does not, ipso facto, constitute misconduct. The learned Senior Counsel, however, submitted that the respondents may be left with liberty to initiate appropriate proceedings for cancellation of the fresh appointment orders issued to the petitioners. In view of the aforesaid submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, both the Writ Petitions are allowed and the impugned show-cause notices and the charge sheets are quashed. The respondents are left free to initiate appropriate proceedings in accordance with law for cancelling the fresh appointment orders at their option. ------------------------------------ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY,J Date:18-4-2009 MNR