IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE NINETEENTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 20247 of 1999 Between: K.Suryanarayana Sastry, S/o.K.N.Sastry, R/o. 3-2-360, Kacheguda, Hyderabad. ..... PETITIONER AND Managing Director, A.P. Small Scale Industrial Development Corporation Limited, A-3, Insustrial Estate, Opp: Police Station, Sanathnagar, Hyderabad-500 018. .....RESPONDENT Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.B.VISWANATHA REDDY Counsel for the Respondent: MR.G.VENKATA MALLA REDDY The Court made the following: Order: This writ petition is filed for a writ of mandamus to set aside proceedings, dated 31.08.1999, whereby the respondent has ordered for recovery of an amount of Rs.10,000/- from the petitioner’s retirement benefits for causing pecuniary loss to the respondent-Corporation and also for failure to verify the documents properly. It is also directed that the period of suspension from 24.05.1998 to 31.04.1999 shall be treated as not on duty. Disciplinary action was initiated against the petitioner, who at the relevant time, was working as an Assistant Manager. As many as five charges were framed and the enquiry officer appointed to conduct enquiry, submitted his report holding that the petitioner is guilty of all the charges. The petitioner was supplied with a copy of the enquiry report and after considering the explanation submitted by him, the disciplinary authority passed the impugned proceedings. At the hearing, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that no enquiry was held into the charges. He also submitted that the petitioner was allowed to take VRS during the pendency of the enquiry proceedings and therefore, it is not open to the respondent to continue with the enquiry and impose punishment on the petitioner after his retirement. I have carefully considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record. As regards the first contention, a perusal of the material shows that on 02.06.1998, respondent called upon the petitioner to submit his explanation, while enclosing a copy of the enquiry report. In response thereto, the petitioner submitted his explanation on 02.08.1999, a perusal of which, shows that the petitioner has not raised any objection regarding non-holding of enquiry. The petitioner has also not filed enquiry report in support of his contention that neither an enquiry was held nor an opportunity was given to him. In view of the same, the contention of the petitioner that no enquiry was held cannot be accepted. With regard to the second contention, in the counter affidavit, it is specifically averred that the petitioner was permitted to retire voluntarily without prejudice to the rights of the employer to continue with the pending disciplinary proceedings. Since the permission given to the petitioner to take voluntary retirement was conditional, the respondent reserved its right to continue with the disciplinary proceedings. No other contention is advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner. For the above-mentioned reasons, I find no merit in the writ petition and it is accordingly dismissed. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J. Date: 19.12.2008 VGB