IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE FOURTEENTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 16472 of 2008 Between: C. Babu Rao S/o Late Anand Rao hindustan Shipyard Ltd., Visakhapatnam, R/o Visakhapatnam. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Hindustan Shipyard Ltd., rep by its Board of Directors, Visakhapatnam. 2 The Chairman and Managing Director Hindustan Shipyard Ltd., Gandhigram, Visakhapatnam-530 005. 3 The Director (Finance & Commercial) hindustan Shipyard Ltd., Gandhigaram, visakhapatnam-530 005. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue a Writ order or direction particularly one in the nature of Writ of Certiorari calling for records pertaining to order dt 17-11-2007 in PD/EC/0113/69/07 passed by the 2nd respondent reverting me from the post of Dy. Manager (Personal) to senior Personal Officer (E2 grade) as confirmed by the 1st respondent in his proceedings dt 12-2-2008 in PD/E/0113/24/2008, dt 8-4-2008 in PD/E/0113/2008 and Quash the same as being illegal, arbitrary and violative of principles of natural justice equity and fair play and consequently directing the respondents to restore my services as Deputy Manager (Personal) with all consequential benefits in the interest of justice and pass such other order/s as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner:MRP.RAJASEKHAR Counsel for the Respondents : MR.S.V.BHATT The Court made the following : ORDER: The petitioner was working as Deputy Manager, in the Hindustan Shipyard Limited, Visakhapatnam. Disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him, by serving a charge sheet, dated 31.10.2006, which contained 3 charges. The petitioner submitted his explanation, and not being satisfied with that, the disciplinary authority, the second respondent herein, appointed an Enquiry Officer. The latter, in turn, submitted a report, dated 30.05.2007, holding that charge No.1 is not proved and charges 2 and 3 are proved. The second respondent, in turn, reappraised the report of the Enquiry Officer, vide his proceedings, dated 17.07.2007. Thereafter, the second respondent issued a show cause notice, dated 24.07.2007, to the petitioner requiring him to submit his explanation. Petitioner submitted his explanation on 01.08.2007. The second respondent, ultimately, passed an order, dated 17.11.2007, imposing the punishment of reduction in rank. Feeling aggrieved by the same, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the first respondent and it was rejected on 08.04.2008. Hence, this Writ Petition. Sri P.Rajasekhar, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the procedure adopted by the second respondent is contrary to law, be it, as regards his reappraisal of the report of the Enquiry officer, or the method of imposing the punishment. It is stated that the appellate authority also did not appreciate the matter from the correct perspective. Sri S.V.Bhatt, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, submits that the petitioner was given adequate opportunity at every stage of the proceedings and his contentions were taken into account. He submits that no prejudice was caused to the petitioner, at any stage. A perusal of the record discloses that up to the stage of submission of report by the Enquiry Officer, no procedural, or factual error had crept in to the proceedings. The Enquiry Officer submitted the report holding that charges 2 and 3 are proved and charge No.1 is not proved. On receipt of the report, the second respondent had reappreciated the matter and held that even the first charge is proved against the petitioner. Thereafter, the views of the petitioner were ascertained, and ultimately, punishment, as mentioned above, was imposed. It is the prerogative of the disciplinary authority to agree with the findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer, or to take a different view, either wholly, or in part. Where the disciplinary authority proposes to differ with the findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer, he would be under obligation to issue notice to the delinquent employee, indicating the reasons, on the basis of which, he intends to differ with the findings in the report. On receipt of the explanation from the employee, the disciplinary authority can arrive at, his own conclusion. The procedure becomes normal thereafter. Any deviation from the method, referred to above, vitiates the proceedings from that stage. In Punjab National Bank v. Kung Beehari Misra, the Supreme Court held so. In the instant case, the second respondent differed with finding of the Enquiry Officer, without giving any opportunity to the petitioner. The ratio of the judgment in the Punjab National Bank’s case (supra) applies. Hence, the Writ Petition is allowed and the impugned order is set aside. It is, however, left open to the second respondent to continue the proceedings from the stage of reappraisal of the report of the Enquiry Officer, duly issuing notice to the petitioner, indicating the reasons on the basis of which, he proposes to differ with the findings of the Enquiry Officer on charge No.1. This exercise shall be completed within a period of two (2) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs. ____________________ Dt.14.08.2008 L.NARASIMHA REDDY, J GJ