THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU WRIT PETITION No.13883 OF 2000 DATED: 23.01.2008 Between: G. Bharat Bhushan Jaya Babu .. Petitioner And M/s. A.P. Scheduled Castes Cooperative Finance Corporation Ltd., Hyderabad, rep. by its Managing Director and others. .. Respondents THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU WRIT PETITION No.13883 OF 2000 ORDER: Initially, the writ petition is filed seeking a Mandamus to declare the action of the 1st respondent in denying promotion to the petitioner to the post of Executive Officer as arbitrary and illegal; and consequently to direct the 1st respondent to promote the petitioner to the post of Executive Officer. It appears, petitioner was denied the promotion in view of some disciplinary proceedings pending against him and, during the pendency of the writ petition, the said disciplinary proceedings were concluded imposing a punishment of stoppage of three annual grade increments with cumulative effect, vide order, dated 06.08.2001, of the 1st respondent. Thereupon, in order to challenge the said order passed by the 1st respondent, the petitioner filed W.P.M.P.No.23597 of 2001 seeking amendment of prayer in the writ petition, and the said petition was allowed by this Court on 17.09.2001. Thus, apart from the relief that was initially sought by the petitioner, the order, dated 06.08.2001, issued by the 1st respondent, is also under challenge in this writ petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner strenuously contended that the impugned order, dated 06.08.2001, has been passed without following the due procedure as required under the law for the purpose of inflicting the petitioner with a punishment of stoppage of three annual grade increments with cumulative effect. He further contended that the enquiry officer, in his findings, recommended to drop three charges out of four charges framed and also recommended to take a lenient view against the petitioner. He also contended that the 1st respondent, while differing with such findings recorded by the enquiry officer, neither put the petitioner on notice nor any explanation was called for from him. Therefore, the impugned order suffers from procedural irregularities apart from being violative of principles of natural justice. The impugned order, dated 06.08.2001, does not reveal that the petitioner was put on notice before coming to a conclusion which is not in consonance with the findings recorded by the enquiry officer. Since no notice of any kind was issued to the petitioner by the disciplinary authority, while differing with the findings recorded by the enquiry officer, I am of the opinion that the impugned order, dated 06.08.2001, is in gross violation of principles of natural justice as well as the procedure to be followed, and, therefore, the same is liable to be set aside. Accordingly, the impugned order, dated 06.08.2001, is set aside. However, this will not preclude the 1st respondent from proceeding with the matter from the stage of submission of report by the enquiry officer and taking further action in the matter. Insofar as promotion of the petitioner to the post of Executive Officer is concerned, the 1st respondent shall consider the same, if he is otherwise eligible as per law, and pass appropriate orders, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, and communicate the same to the petitioner. Further, if the 1st respondent feels that there is no necessity of proceeding with the matter further, it may consider promoting the petitioner from the date when the unofficial respondents 2 to 7 were promoted to the post of Executive Officer. With the above directions, the writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. ____​________________ JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU 23rd January, 2008. IBL