THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.4397 of 2010 ORDER: The petitioner is working as SIRC (Sub-Inspector of Revenue Cashier), which is equivalent to UDC in the Southern Power Distribution Company of A.P. Limited. A charge memo was issued to the petitioner on 26.12.2008 by the second respondent alleging that the Assistant Accounts Officer, Ongole, informed him that the petitioner did not undertake surprise checks nor he did submit duplicate P.R. books. The other allegations as to certain derelictions were also made. The petitioner submitted his explanation denying the allegations. He has furnished details of the surprise checks undertaken by him. The second respondent passed an order dated 16.06.2009 imposing punishment of postponement of one increment with cumulative effect. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner filed an appeal before the first respondent. The appeal was rejected on 07.11.2009. Hence, this Writ Petition. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. On receipt of some information from the Assistant Accounts Officer, the second respondent issued a show cause notice to the petitioner on 26.12.2008 proposing punishment of postponement of two increments with cumulative effect. On receipt of the show cause notice, the petitioner submitted detailed explanation. The second respondent ought to have examined the same and passed orders. Instead, he has simply forwarded the explanation submitted by the petitioner to the Assistant Accounts Officer. The latter, in turn, is stated to have offered his remarks stating that the explanation submitted by the petitioner is not satisfactory. Thereupon, the second respondent has simply passed the order dated 16.06.2009. That, in turn, was upheld by the first respondent. Whenever disciplinary proceedings are initiated against an employee, the disciplinary authority is under obligation to be in total control of the proceedings. It is he, that has to form an opinion on the basis of the charge levelled against the employee and the explanation offered thereto. The question of forwarding the explanation submitted by an employee to another official, much less taking action on the basis of the remarks offered by the latter, does not arise. Such a course would amount to surrendering of power and discretion by the disciplinary authority to another official. The impugned order suffers from the said illegality. Hence, the Writ Petition is allowed and the impugned orders dated 07.11.2009 and 16.06.2009 are set aside. There shall be no order as to costs. __________________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY, J 27th October 2010 cvrk