THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY Writ Petition No.25192 of 2010 ORDER: The petitioner is working as Conveyor Operator in GDK 10 Incline of Singareni Collieries Limited, Kothagudem. Disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him by issuing a charge sheet, dated 20.07.2009. The petitioner submitted his explanation on 24.07.2009. The Enquiry Officer submitted report, and a copy of the same was forwarded to the petitioner requiring him to submit explanation. The petitioner submitted representation on 27.10.2009, pointing out certain infirmities in the report of the Enquiry Officer. The General Manager, the 3rd respondent herein, passed an order, dated 07.01.2010, imposing the punishment of stoppage of two increments with cumulative effect. The same is challenged in this Writ Petition. The petitioner contends that on receipt of representation, dated 27.10.2009, the 3rd respondent was under obligation to consider the same and instead, he simply forwarded to the Enquiry Officer, and in that view of the matter, there is no occasion for him to consider the explanation at all. He submits that the impugned order was passed after several months without applying the mind. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. The Enquiry Officer submitted report holding that the charges framed against the petitioner, are proved. As required under law, the 3rd respondent forwarded the same to the petitioner requiring him to submit explanation. On that, the petitioner submitted the explanation/ representation dated 27.10.2009. The 3rd respondent ought to have taken the same into account and passed orders. However, he has chosen to forward the copy of the representation submitted by the petitioner on 27.10.2009, to the Enquiry Officer. Further, the effect of consideration of such explanation must be felt from the ultimate order and not through intermittent reply. A letter, dated 29.10.2009 addressed by the 3rd respondent to the petitioner reads as under: “Reference to the above, your representation dated 27.10.2009 has been carefully examined in detail. This is to inform that full and fair opportunity was given to you in the enquiry and points raised in your explanation were already brought to the notice of Enquiry Officer during the course of enquiry. In view of the above, this is to inform that there is no new point brought out in your explanation dated 27.10.2009. As such you are hereby informed that there is no merit for consideration in your explanation.” From this, it can be said that the 3rd respondent was not clear, as to the steps taken by him on the representation. On the one hand, he has forwarded the same to the Enquiry Officer, and on the other hand, he stated that the explanation does not merit consideration. It appears that the 3rd respondent, lacked experience, to handle such matters. The forwarding of the representation submitted by an employee to the Enquiry Officer itself is unknown to law. The Enquiry Officer becomes functus officio, once he submits report, and he cannot deal with the matter in any manner, after submission of the report. The 3rd respondent committed patent illegality in forwarding the representation submitted by the petitioner to the Enquiry Officer. Secondly, the 3rd respondent is not supposed to express the view independently and his opinion on such representation must be reflected only in the final order. The 2nd respondent did pass a final order, which contains two dates 31.12.2009 and 07.01.2010. The relevant portion of the order reads as under: “Though the charges levelled and proved against you being grave and serious in nature and the punishment warranted is that of dismissal, in consideration of your representation and keeping in view of your past record, it has been decided to take a lenient view this time and to award penalty of reversion to lower stage by stoppage of Two Increments earned by you with cumulative effect.” The 3rd respondent expressed the view that the representation made by the petitioner does not merit consideration. The question of his observation, at a later stage, that he has taken decision on consideration thereof, does not arise. The observations made by him in the impugned order are superfluous. For the foregoing reasons, the Writ Petition is allowed and the impugned order is set aside. It is left open to the 3rd respondent to pass fresh orders in accordance with law. There shall be no order as costs. _____________________ L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J. Dt.06.10.2010. GJ