HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA WRIT PETITION No. 3192 of 2006 DATED 27th September, 2011 BETWEEN Ch.Venkaiah …….Petitioner and The Managing Director, AP GENCO, Vidyuth Soudha, Hyderabad and ors. ……Respondent HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA WRIT PETITION No. 3192 of 2006 ORDER: The petitioner herein is an adopted son of one Sri Ch.Venkateswarlu, who died in a road accident on 27.12.1998. He worked as a Junior Plant Operator at KTPS, Palvancha of the respondent-APGENCO during his life time. The petitioner was appointed as an attender on compassionate grounds. While so, he was charge sheeted on 29.9.2005 on the ground that he gave false information regarding his name, father’s name, qualification, age etc., to secure the subject employment at the time of his recruitment. The petitioner submitted his explanation to the said charge sheet. After conducting the enquiry, the second respondent issued a show cause notice dated 14.2.2006 to the petitioner calling for explanation as to why punishment of removal from service should not be imposed. Questioning the same, the present Writ Petition is filed. The respondents filed a counter affidavit stating that the impugned order is only a show cause notice and not a final order and that the petitioner can submit his explanation in regard thereto. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent-AP GENCO. The only contention raised by the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the appointment of the third respondent as an Enquiry Officer was not preceded by a show cause notice or by a charge sheet and in that view of the matter, the proceedings are vitiated. He placed reliance on the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in Writ Appeal No. 491 of 2005, dated 13.4.2005. In the aforesaid judgment, the division Bench of this Court following the judgment of the Supreme Court in State of Punjab Vs. V.K.Khanna held that in any disciplinary proceedings, the necessity to appoint an Enquiry Officer arises only when the appointing authority points out certain acts of indiscipline on the part of the delinquent employee and the explanation offered by the employee is not satisfactory; and that when the explanation submitted by the delinquent employee is found to be satisfactory, the necessity to proceed further does not arise. It was further held that the appointment of an Enquiry Officer even before a show cause notice or charge sheet is served upon an employee is unknown to service jurisprudence and in such an event, an element of bias exists vis-à-vis the Enquiry Officer. The appointing authority would be in a position to apply his mind to the facts of the case only when he calls upon an employee to explain as to the acts of misconduct noticed by him and depending on his satisfaction, on consideration of the explanation, he may have to choose either to proceed further or to drop the proceedings. The need to appoint an Enquiry Officer would arise if only the appointing authority is not satisfied with the explanation offered by the employee and that he proposes to inflict a major penalty. In the case on hand, the respondent authorities appointed the Enquiry Officer by order dated 29.9.2005 followed by issuance of charge sheet. The appointing authority, prior to appointment of an enquiry officer by order dated 29.9.2005, did not call for any explanation from the petitioner on the alleged acts of misconduct or indiscipline levelled against him. Without calling for any explanation from the petitioner and considering the same as to whether the explanation submitted by the petitioner on the alleged acts of misconduct would necessitate for appointment of an enquiry officer, it straight away proceeded to appoint an Enquiry Officer followed by issuance of charge sheet. As stated in the decision supra, the same is unknown to service jurisprudence and vitiates the whole proceedings. In that view of the matter, the order impugned dated 14.2.2006 issued by the second respondent is set aside. However, it is open to the respondent authorities to issue a show cause notice to the petitioner and thereafter take further steps in accordance with law. The Writ Petition is allowed to the extent indicated above. There shall be no order as to costs. --------------------------------------------- JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA Dated 27th September, 2011. Msnro