THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU WRIT PETITION No.15442 OF 2011 ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed to declare the show-cause notice bearing No.01/802(02)/2010-GDK, dated 01.06.2011, issued by the respondent, as illegal and arbitrary and consequently, to direct the respondent to drop the proposed punishment of removal and reinstate the petitioner into service with all consequential benefits. 2. The brief facts that are necessary for disposal of the present Writ Petition may be stated as follows: The petitioner was appointed as a casual Shramik in the year 1993 and his services were regularized in the year 1996. On 20.10.2010, the petitioner was on duty in DGT No. AEZ 3025 to get the goods from zonal work shop at Karimnagar. As per requisition, the goods were loaded in the vehicle and at the main gate, the said goods were checked by the Security Guard, Sri B.V. Reddy, thoroughly and the vehicle was allowed to pass the main gate. On thorough check of the vehicle, no illegal or unauthorized material was found in the said vehicle. After checking, the petitioner parked the vehicle in between stores and TRS main gate and went to have snacks. At that point of time, the alleged check was conducted by one Sri V.C. Rao, Security Head Guard, who is inimical towards the petitioner. Basing on his allegations, the respondent kept the petitioner under suspension on 11.11.2010 and charge sheet was issued against the petitioner. The said charge reads as follows: “For having stolen the above material has stated in the allegation from ZWS/KRMR through DGT No.AEZ-3025 of Godavarikhani depot on 20.10.2010 worth Rs.12,115.00 without any issue note/gate pass at TRS which were caught red handed by the on duty security guard when parked between TRS and Stores, Karimnagar, at about 14:00 which act of theft of Corporation property, constitutes serious mis- conduct in terms of Regulation No.28 (x) & (xxxii) of APSRTC Employees (CONDUCT) Regulations, 1963.” To the above said charge, the petitioner has submitted a detailed explanation on 24.11.2010 by denying the charge. The petitioner stated in his explanation that the goods vehicle was thoroughly checked by the Security Guard, Sri B.V. Reddy, E.No.307162; that in order to take snacks, the petitioner parked the vehicle after crossing the main gate; that in the meanwhile, the alleged check was conducted; that basing on the said check, the charge sheet was issued and he was placed under suspension and that in fact, he was not aware with regard to the above said articles of charges. Thereafter, enquiry was conducted in accordance with the Rules and the Enquiry Officer has given a finding and submitted a Report to the disciplinary authority. In pursuance of that Enquiry Report, the respondent issued the show-cause notice, dated 01.06.2011, calling for the explanation of the petitioner as to why the proposed punishment of removal from service should not be imposed and directed him to give explanation within seven days from the date of receipt of that notice. Challenging the said show-cause notice, the present Writ Petition is filed. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that there is no allegation against the petitioner with regard to the misconduct which had appeared in the enquiry and so, in the absence of any finding with regard to the misconduct, the issuance of show-cause notice to the petitioner is bad in law and hence, he prays to declare the show-cause notice, dated 01.06.2011, as illegal and arbitrary. 4. Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent contended that since it is a show-cause notice, the petitioner can as well give an explanation and that at this stage, it is the disciplinary authority who has to take appropriate decision in accordance with the Rules and Regulations and also with reference to the findings of the Enquiry Officer. 5. Ordinarily, this Court would not interfere with a show-cause notice, unless the person who issued the show-cause notice lacks jurisdiction or has no authority to issue such a show-cause notice. It is for the disciplinary authority to act independently with regard to the finding given by the Enquiry Officer. Therefore, appropriate decision has to be taken by the disciplinary authority in accordance with the Rules and Regulations and also with reference to the finding given by the Enquiry Officer. Hence, the Writ Petition is devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed. 6. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. However, in view of the fact that seven days’ time granted for submission of the explanation by the petitioner to the impugned show-cause notice has been expired, reasonable time can be given to the petitioner to give explanation. Therefore, the petitioner is directed to give explanation to the impugned show-cause notice, within ten days from today. After giving such an explanation by the petitioner, appropriate decision has to be taken by the disciplinary authority in accordance with law. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________ K.C. BHANU, J June 09, 2011 MD IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE NINETH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU WRIT PETITION No.15442 OF 2011 Between: K.B. Reddy .....PETITIONER AND The Depot Manager, APSRTC, Godavarikhani Depot ....RESPONDENT The Court made the following: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU WRIT PETITION No.15442 OF 2011 June 09, 2011