HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.28266 OF 2010 ORDER: The petitioner was working as a Store Keeper in the Central Power Distribution Company Limited. He was issued charge sheet alleging that he indulged in misappropriation of Aluminum scrap resulting in financial loss to the organization. Petitioner submitted his explanation. Thereupon an Enquiry Officer was appointed, who inturn, submitted a report dated 27-07-2007 holding that the charge against the petitioner is not proved. The Chairman and the Managing Director of the Company, 1st respondent herein, issued a show cause notice dated 25-03-2008 proposing punishment of recovery of 40% of the value of the Aluminum scrap. While issuing that notice, he differed with the finding of the enquiry officer. Petitioner submitted his explanation. Taking the same into account, the 1st respondent passed an order dated 30-07-2008 directing recovery of 963 kgs., value of Aluminum scrap amounting to Rs.67,410/-. Petitioner preferred an appeal against the said order and the appeal was rejected on 25-08- 2010. Hence, this writ petition. 2. Heard Sri D. Linga Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri P.R. Balarami Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. 3. Petitioner was issued a charge sheet in which one charge was framed. Taking the explanation submitted by the petitioner into account, the 1st respondent appointed an Enquiry Officer. Through a detailed report, the Enquiry Officer held that the charge against the petitioner is not proved. An observation as to his maintenance of record was made. 4. In case, the 1st respondent intended to differ with the finding recorded by the Enquiry Officer, it was obligatory on his part to issue a show cause notice to the petitioner requiring him to explain as to why a different view other than the one taken by the Enquiry Officer be not taken on the charge. However, the 1st respondent has straightaway proceeded to differ with the finding and proposed punishment of recovery of value of 963 kgs. of the material. The procedure adopted by the 1st respondent is patently illegal and is liable to be set aside. 5. Hence, the Writ Petition is allowed and the order, dated 30-07-2008, is set aside. It is, however, left open to the 1st respondent to issue a show cause notice to the petitioner directing him to explain as to why the finding recorded by the Enquiry Officer be not differed and to take further steps in accordance with law. There shall be no order as to costs. ____________________ L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J November 16, 2010. KTL