HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION No.920 of 2000 ORDER: The order of punishment of stoppage of three increments with cumulative effect imposed by the Managing Director of the A.P. State Housing Corporation dated 03.06.1997, as confirmed by the order of the 1st respondent in G.O.Rt. No.10 dated 13.01.1999 rejecting the appeal preferred by the petitioner, is the subject matter of challenge in this writ petition. While several contentions are raised in the writ petition, Sri A. Rajasekhar Reddy, Learned Counsel for the petitioner, would confine his submissions only to the lack of jurisdiction of the Government to reject the appeal, and that the order of the Government, in G.O.Rt. No.10 dated 13.01.1999, is bereft of reasons and suffers from non-application of mind. Since the submission of Sri A. Rajasekhar Reddy, Learned Counsel for the petitioner is confined only to the validity of the order in G.O.Rt. No.10 dated 13.01.1999, it would suffice to note that, as against the order passed by the 2nd respondent dated 03.06.1997, the petitioner preferred an appeal to the Chairman/Board of Directors of the A.P. State Housing Corporation vide his appeal petition dated 23.09.1997 wherein the order of the 2nd respondent-disciplinary authority was subjected to challenge on fifteen grounds. Curiously when the matter was placed before the Board of Directors of the A.P. State Housing Corporation, the Board, in its meeting held on 29.12.1997, resolved to authorize the Managing Director to examine the matter further and furnish a special report to the Government. Pursuant thereto, the Managing Director is said to have furnished his report dated 28.03.1998 to the Government, without furnishing a copy thereof to the petitioner. Even more curious is that the Government, which admittedly is not the appellate authority, (Sri P. Uday Bhaskar, Learned Standing Counsel for the A.P. State Housing Corporation would fairly state that it is the Board of Directors which is the appellate authority and not the Government), rejected the appeal preferred by the petitioner in its order in G.O.Rt. No.10 Housing (RH) Department dated 13.01.1999 and requested the Managing Director to take further action in the matter. The Managing Director, vide his memo dated 15.06.1999, communicated the order of the Government to the petitioner herein. As rightly contended by Sri A. Rajasekhar Reddy, Learned Counsel for the petitioner, the Board of Directors of the A.P. State Housing Corporation (the appellate authority against the order of the 2nd respondent) have abdicated their functions, as an appellate authority, to the Government which, despite the fact that it is not the appellate authority, passed the order rejecting the appeal preferred by the petitioner without assigning any reasons let alone meet any of the contentions raised by the petitioner in his appeal petition dated 23.09.1997. The impugned order of the Government in G.O.Rt. No.10 dated 13.01.1999 is, therefore, set aside. Since it is the Board of Directors of the A.P. State Housing Corporation which is the appellate authority, the Board shall, without referring the matter to the Government and on its own accord, pass a reasoned order on the petitioner’s appeal within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. In case the appellate authority places reliance on any report or proceedings which was hitherto not furnished to the petitioner, a copy thereof shall be furnished to the petitioner and he shall be given an opportunity of submitting his additional objections in challenge to the validity of the order passed by the disciplinary authority. Needless to state that, pending the decision of the appellate authority, the order passed by the 2nd respondent-disciplinary authority shall continue to remain in force. It is also made clear that, since the submissions urged before this Court is confined only to the validity of the appellate order, this Court has not examined any of the other contentions on its merits and such questions are left open to be raised, if need be, after the appeal is disposed of. The Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly. However, in the circumstances, without costs. ____________________________ RAMESH RANGANATHAN, J Date: 29.07.2010 MRKR