THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED and THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.G.SHANKAR WRIT APPEAL No.532 of 2011 JUDGMENT: (per Hon’ble Sri Justice Ghulam Mohammed) This Writ Appeal is filed by the appellant against the order of the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.8598 of 2011, dated 07.06.2011. Facts, in brief, are that the appellant was initially recruited as a cashier in the service of the respondent-bank on 17.04.1985, that he was promoted on 01.01.1993 as Junior Management Grade Scale-I Officer, that he worked at Kesamudram Branch, Warangal Zone and later at Nakkalagutta Branch, Hanumakonda and that on 30.05.2009, he was transferred and posted as Assistant Manager at Kakatiya Medical College Branch, Warangal. On 26.08.2009, the Nakkalagutta Branch had summoned the appellant alleging certain irregularities in sanction of gold loans. Subsequently, the Chief Manager of the Bank lodged a complaint and the same was registered as Crime No.401 of 2009. It is stated that the appellant was initially suspended on 27.08.2009 from service and the second respondent issued charge sheet on 09.03.2010 alleging that while he was working as Assistant Manager at Nakkalagutta Branch, he had resorted to several serious irregularities and had fraudulently availed gold loans in the names of fictitious persons by impersonation against pledge of spurious gold ornaments. The appellant, however, denied the allegations levelled against him. Alleging that the charge sheet issued on 09.03.2010 by the second respondent was in violation of Regulation 10 of the Andhra Bank Officer Employees (Discipline and Appeal) Regulations, 1981 (for short ‘Regulations’), and the consequential order of appointment of the third respondent as enquiry officer on 29.04.2010 as illegal and to set aside the same, the appellant filed the Writ Petition. The appellant relying on Regulation 10 of the Regulations that, where two or more officer employees are concerned in a case, the authority competent to impose a major penalty on all such officer employees may make an order directing that disciplinary proceeding against all of them may be taken in a common proceeding, contended before the learned Single Judge that, as the enquiry revealed that two other officers have actually sanctioned the gold loans, he cannot be proceeded in isolation and the bank should have ordered for common proceedings to be held against the two other officers along with the appellant, and in no case, he should not be singled out. The learned Judge, having relied on various decisions of the Supreme Court and other Courts, observed that holding joint or common proceedings would help in saving lot of time, money and energy; it would obviate the possibility of inconsistent views being entertained in the matter; and it would help in having comprehensive and holistic view of the entire matter. The learned Judge further observing that it was not for the individual employee to insist upon joint enquiry proceedings or common proceedings to be held nor could one say that failure to hold a joint enquiry vitiates the disciplinary proceedings already initiated against an individual officer and dismissed the Writ Petition. Hence the Writ Appeal. Sri P.V.Venkateswara Rao, learned Counsel for the appellant, submits that the word ‘may’ used in Regulation 10 of the Regulations has to be used as shall and mandatory, and not ‘may’ to be directory, resulting in joint or common proceedings against all of them as mandatory. Learned Counsel relied on a Division Bench judgment of this Court in G.V.Jayachandra Chowdary v. Government of A.P.[1], wherein the Division Bench struck down clause (h) of Explanation, appended to Section 12-A of the A.P.Cooperative Societies Act, 1964, defining ‘best offer’, being integral and forming direct impact on the operation of those provisions, as unconstitutional because it conferred unguided and uncanalised power in the Registrar. Dr. K.Lakshmi Narasimha, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent-bank, however, submits that since the appellant had not questioned the vires of Regulation 10 of the Regulations, the impugned order does not require the interference of this Court. It is settled principle of law that Courts are not required to substitute the words found in statutes or rules made thereunder. It must be borne in mind that the context in which the expressions are used should be assigned the normal meaning that such words carry with them. In view of the various decisions relied on by the learned Single Judge on the expression ‘may’ found in Regulation 10 of the Regulations, it has to be held that the unguided ‘may’ cannot be read as mandatory. Therefore, we do not find any infirmity in the order under appeal. It is for the Courts to interpret the statutes and not to substitute the words or expressions when they are clear in their meaning and the rule making authority is only empowered to substitute the words or expressions. The Writ Appeal fails and is, accordingly, dismissed. No order as to costs. GHULAM MOHAMMED,J K.G.SHANKAR,J Dt:19.07.2011 Usd [1] 2004(3) ALT 417(DB)