THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.194 of 2011 ORDER: The petitioner is working as Assistant Executive Engineer in the Andhra Pradesh Power Generation Corporation Limited, respondent No.1 herein. A charge memo was issued to him by the Superintending Engineer, Enquiries & Enquiry Officer, respondent No.3 herein, on 20.02.2008 alleging that the petitioner remained unauthorisedly absent for quite a long time. The petitioner submitted his explanation and respondent No.2 submitted a report holding that the charge framed against the petitioner is proved. Thereafter, the Chief General Manager (Administration), respondent No.2 herein, issued a show cause notice, dated 22.12.2010, requiring the petitioner to explain as to why the punishment of removal of service be not imposed against him. The petitioner challenges the show cause notice, dated 22.12.2010, and the other connected proceedings. His contention is that the framing of charges by respondent No.3 is opposed to law and that respondent No.2 is not entitled to issue show cause notice proposing the punishment. Reliance is placed upon the relevant Service Regulations and the decisions rendered by this Court. The respondents filed a counter-affidavit stating that the proceedings were initiated against the petitioner strictly in terms of the Service Regulations. It is also stated that respondent Nos.2 and 3 are conferred with the powers to function as disciplinary authority and Enquiry Officer respectively. Heard Sri K.Vasudeva Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri C.Raghu, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. The Regulations that are applicable to the employees of respondent No.1 prescribe the procedure to be followed in the disciplinary proceedings against the employees. One of the fundamental requirements either under the Regulations or under the general principles of law is that it is only the appointing authority that can initiate disciplinary proceedings by issuing a charge sheet and the occasion to appoint an Enquiry Officer would arise if only the employee concerned denies the charges. Unless the rules specifically empower the Enquiry Officer himself to frame charges, it would not be competent for him. Dealing with an identical situation, a Division Bench of this Court in Ch.Appala Reddy Vs Eastern Power Distribution Company of A.P. Limited[1] held that it is not competent for an Enquiry Officer to frame the charges. On that ground, the proceedings that are initiated against the petitioner are liable to be set aside. Added to that, respondent No.2 issued the show cause notice proposing the punishment of removal. According to the Regulations framed by respondent No.1, the authority that can impose punishment of removal against an Officer in the rank of Assistant Executive Engineer is the Chairman. Respondent No.2 is not conferred with such a power. On these two grounds, the writ petition is allowed and the proceedings initiated against the petitioner are set aside. It is, however, left open to the appointing authority to initiate disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner, in accordance with law. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY,J Dt:11.10.2011. kdl [1] 2005(3) ALT 632 (D.B.)