IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU WRIT PETITION NO : 10325 of 1999 Between: Syed Maqbool Hussain S/o. Ahmed Hussain R/o. Quarter No. SD-88, Srirampur Colony, Laxettipet, Adilabad District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Director (CP& P) Singareni Collieries Co.Ltd. Kothagudam, Khammam District. 2 The Colliery Manager, RK-88 Incline, S.C.CO.Ltd Srirampur (Project Area), Adilabad. .....RESPONDENT(S) 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 to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus by declaring the impugned proceedings No. P10/4201/IR/245, dated 28.4.1999 passed by the first Respondent herein, as arbitrary, illegal, void abinition besides violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and set aside the same, and pass such other order/s deems fit and proper. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.Y.RAMA RAO Counsel for the Respondent No.: MR.K.SRINIVASA MURTHY The Court made the following : ORAL ORDER: This writ petition is filed seeking a Mandamus declaring the impugned proceedings dated 28.4.1999 passed by first respondent as arbitrary, illegal and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. It appears, petitioner joined Singareni Collieries Company Limited as voluntary casual worker and his services were regularized in the year 1977 and subsequently, he was promoted as Short Firer in the year 1981 and later promoted as Mining Sardar and after acquiring necessary qualifications, he was promoted as Overman in the year 1983 and further promoted as Head Overman in the year 1993. While the matter stood thus, petitioner was suspended from service vide orders of the second respondent dated 26.5.1998 pending enquiry with regard to certain charges leveled against him in respect of an incident that occurred on 27.3.1998. A charge sheet was issued to the petitioner on 3.4.1998 alleging that on 27.3.1998 in third shift, he has not observed Regulation 43-8(a) and 43-8(b) of the Coal Mines Regulations, 1957 and that he was not available in the district from 5.45 a.m. onwards to render his aid to Kimidi Gangaiah, Pump Operator, who was injured in an accident near 21 DIP of 7 LN endless haulage roadway in two seam. Subsequently, after conducting enquiry, petitioner was reverted to the post of Foreman. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition is filed. There is no necessity of going into all the details. It is suffice to notice that the impugned order dated 28.4.1999 does not speak as to what exactly the findings of the enquiry officer, what was the evidence recorded, who were examined in the enquiry and how the disciplinary authority appreciated the same. All these details are absent in the impugned proceedings. Thus, it is clear that the disciplinary authority has not applied its mind before passing the impugned order, nor it has noticed what exactly the findings of the enquiry officer, except stating that the report of the enquiry officer is carefully considered and thus agreed with his findings holding petitioner guilty of charge. This sort of the order passed by the disciplinary authority cannot stand to legal scrutiny, therefore the same is liable to be set aside. In the result, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned order is set aside. However, this will not preclude the respondents from passing a detailed order after furnishing all the reasons, as required under law. No order as to costs. ____________ C.V.RAMULU, J Date: 17.4.2008 DA