IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE FIRST DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU WRIT PETITION NO : 4051 of 1996 Between: R.Narasimha Murthy S/o late Sitaramaiah Food Corporation of India, Guntur. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Senior Regional Manager, Food Corporation of India, Regional Office, Hyderabad-4. 2 Zonal Manager, Zonal Office, FCI, 2, Maddows Road, Madras-600 006. .....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 To issue a Writ, order or direction declaring the proceedings of the 1st respondent in Lr.Vig. 4/6/91 dated 20/02/1993 which was confirmed by the 2nd respondetn in Proc.No.Vig.5(12)/93 dated 11/01/1995 as illegal, arbitrary, contrary to law, apart from being discreminatory and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and pass Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.A.V.SIVAIAH Counsel for the Respondent No.: MR.T.BALAJI (SC FOR FCI) The Court made the following : ORAL ORDER: This writ petition is filed seeking a Mandamus declaring the proceedings of the first respondent in Lr.Vig.4/6/91 dated 20.2.1993 as confirmed by the second respondent in proceedings No.Vig.5(12)/93 dated 11.1.1995 as arbitrary, illegal, contrary to law apart from being discriminatory and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. There is no necessity of going into all the details. It appears, petitioner was proceeded with departmentally in view of certain misconduct alleged against him. The Enquiry Officer submitted his report holding the charges framed against the petitoner as not proved. The disciplinary authority took up the matter and proceeded further and held the petitoner guilty of charges and imposed with punishment of stoppage of two increments with cumulative effect. When the matter carried in appeal, the appellate authority reduced the punishment of stoppage of two increments to that of stoppage of one increment with cumulative effect. The question arose in this writ petition is as to whether the disciplinary authority could have proceeded on his own without putting the petitioner on notice while differing with the findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer. Admittedly, no notice of any kind has been issued to the petitioner by the disciplinary authority before holding him guilty of charges and imposing punishment. On this ground alone, the writ petition is liable to be allowed. In this regard, the learned counsel for petitioner relied on the judgment in DAVANGERE COTTON MILLS LTD. v. COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, BELGAUM[1] and taken this Court to paragraph 10 of the said judgment. Para 10 of the judgment reads as under: “The conclusion of the High Court was contrary to the consistent view taken by this Court that in case the disciplinary authority differs with the view taken by the inquiry officer, he is bound to give a notice setting out his tentative conclusions to the appellant. It is only after hearing the appellant that the disciplinary authority would at all arrive at a final finding of guilt. Thereafter, the employee would again have to be served with a notice relating to the punishment proposed”. In view of the above, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned proceedings issued by first respondent as confirmed by second respondent are set aside. No order as to costs. ____________ C.V.RAMULU, J Date: 1.4.2008 DA THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU W.P.No.4051 of 1996 1.4.2008 [1] (2006) 9 SCC443