IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI AND THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH WRIT PETITION NO : 4943 of 2008 Between: Ch.Srinivasa RAo S/o.Nageswara Rao Ayyanki Gram panchayat Muvva Mandal, Krishna district ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The District Panchayat officer, Krishna District at Machilipatnam 2 The Divisional Panchayat officer-Enquiry Officer, Vijayawada, Krishna District .....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 issue a writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the order passed in OA.No.4186/2007 dated 18.12.2007 on the file of the Hon`ble AP Administrative Tribunal as illegal, arbitrary, by further declaring that the charge Memo No. dated 29.6.2007 in Roc.No.2603/2006 Pts-5 issued by the 1st respondent herein as illegal, arbitrary, and violative of rights guaranteed under Article 14,16,21 and 311 of the Constitution of India and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.V.MALLIK Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR SERVICES I The Court made the following : ORAL ORDER: (per THE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI) Seeking a writ of mandamus declaring the order, dated 18.12.2007, made in O.A. No. 4186 of 2007 by the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad, as illegal and arbitrary and to further declare the charge Memo dated 29.6.2007 in ROC No. 2603/2006 Pts-5 issued by the first respondent as illegal, arbitrary and violative of rights guaranteed under Article 14, 16, 21 and 311 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner filed this writ petition. The petitioner herein filed the above OA assailing the charge Memo No.2603/2006 Pts.5 dated 29.6.2007 issued by the first respondent and the consequential proceedings dated 16.7.2007 in Roc. No. 704 of 23007 issued by the second respondent, whereby the petitioners and others were directed to be present at the office of the Tiruvuru Gram Panchayath on 24.7.2007 as the Divisional Panchayath Officer, Vijayawada, would conduct an enquiry. The petitioner who was working as Bill Collector in Ayyanki Gram Panchayath, Muvva Mandal, was placed under suspension and was served with the charge Memo dated 29.6.2007 for certain irregularities. The petitioner assailed the said Charge Memo on the ground that it is vitiated by predetermined opinion expressed by the Disciplinary Authority in the charge memo. The Tribunal, by the order, which is impugned in this writ petition, has disposed of the O.A. directing the respondents to conclude the disciplinary proceedings within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the order thereof. Aggrieved thereby, the present writ petition is filed by the petitioner, inter alia contending that since the charges are not prefaced with the words the substance of charge, the language of the charge levelled against the petitioner, creates a reasonable apprehension in the mind of the petitioner that the disciplinary authority is predetermined and, hence, the Tribunal has erred in passing the impugned order. Evidently, the OA was filed assailing the charge memo dated 29.6.2007 wherein, the petitioner was directed to appear before the Disciplinary Authority – District Panchayath Officer, Krishna on 9.7.2007 ant submit written statement in his defense. Therefore, it cannot be said that the Disciplinary Authority is predetermined or has expressed such an opinion in the charge Memo. There is nothing on record to show that the Disciplinary Authority was either predetermined or that such an opinion is expressed by it. Having gone through the entire material available on record, I do not find any illegality in the impugned order. However, the learned counsel for the petitioner sought time to submit explanation to the second show cause notice. Accordingly, two weeks time is granted to submit explanation, from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. In the event of the petitioner submitting such an explanation, the respondents are directed to complete the enquiry on or before 31.8.2008, in accordance with law. With the above direction, the writ petition is disposed of at the stage of admission. No order as to costs. ____________________ T.MEENA KUMARI, J. __________________ G.CHANDRAIAH, J. March 10, 2008 MAS.