THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.8130 of 2010 ORDER: Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. Petitioner is a retired Officer in the Transmission Corporation of Andhra Pradesh Limited (for short ‘the Corporation’). In the disciplinary proceedings initiated against him, as a measure of penalty, a memo bearing No. CGM (HRD&Trg)/ DE/DC/380-P1/2002-41, dated 09.09.2008 was issued by the second respondent imposing on him the penalty of 10% cut in pension for a period of two (2) years besides recovery of Rs.1,00,871.15 ps along with 10% interest. In the memo itself, it is mentioned that against it, an appeal lies to the first respondent under Regulation 18 of the Andhra Pradesh Transmission Corporation Limited Discipline and Appeal Regulations (for short ‘the Regulations’). Questioning the said memo, the petitioner has preferred an appeal before the first respondent on 08.12.2008. The said appeal was disposed of by the second respondent himself through his order, dated 26.03.2010 vide Memo No.CGM (HRD&Trg)/ DE/DC/380- P1/2002-55. Though the disciplinary proceedings as confirmed by the second respondent are questioned on several grounds, the impugned order is questioned mainly on the ground that the authority, who passed the said order, is not competent to dispose of the appeal, as per the Regulations. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that as per the Regulations, the first respondent - Chairman and Managing Director of the Corporation is the competent authority to dispose of the appeal preferred by the petitioner. When the matter came up for hearing earlier i.e. on 13.04.2010, it was adjourned to enable the learned Standing Counsel to get instructions with regard to the competency of the second respondent in passing the impugned order in the appeal preferred by the petitioner. Today, when the matter is taken up, the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents fairly submits that the first respondent is the appellate authority but not the second respondent, who passed the impugned order in the appeal preferred by the petitioner questioning the memo, dated 09.09.2008. From the above admitted position, it is clear that the disciplinary and appellate authorities shall not be one and the same and the first respondent is the appellate authority. When against the memo, dated 09.09.2008 issued by the second respondent, an appeal lies to the first respondent, it is not known why the very same authority has considered the appeal preferred by the petitioner and passed the impugned order. For the aforesaid reasons, the impugned order is set aside and the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the first respondent to dispose of the appeal preferred by the petitioner on 08.12.2008 afresh as per the Regulations. It is submitted that in Writ Petition No.6701 of 2009, this Court vide order, dated 31.03.2009 directed the respondents not to give effect to the memo, dated 09.09.2008 issued by the second respondent, till disposal of the appeal. In that view of the matter, there shall be a further direction to the respondents not to enforce the memo, dated 09.09.2008 till the appeal is disposed of afresh by the first respondent. No order as to costs. ______________________ R.SUBHASH REDDY, J 19th APRIL, 2010. Note: issue c.c. in two days. kvni