IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE NINETEENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No. 11921 of 2008 Between: Mr. D.C.Mohan Kumar S/o. Sri D.P.R.Mohan Rao State Bank of Hyderabad, Main Branch, Stone Housepet, Nellore. ..... PETITIONER AND The State Bank Of Hyderabad, Head Office, Gunfoundry, Hyderabad, rep. by its Disciplinary Authority and General Manager(OP) T.P.Department, .....RESPONDENT 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 an order direction or writ particularly one in the nature of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ declaring the proceedings no.DPD/30 dated 3.4.2008 including the memorandum of charge sheet No.DPD/425 dated 10.7.2007 as illegal and arbitrary and consequently quash the same. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.V.VENKATARANGA REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No:--- The Court made the following ORDER: The petitioner is working as an Officer of MMGS-III in State Bank of Hyderabad. Disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him by issuing a charge memo in relation to discharge of his duties. The petitioner denied the charges levelled against him. The disciplinary authority appointed an Enquiry Officer. A report, dated 08.03.2008 was submitted by the Enquiry Officer. The disciplinary authority agreed with the findings and issued notice, dated 03.04.2008, proposing the punishment of compulsory retirement of the petitioner from service and for recovery of Rs.85,000/- from him. The petitioner submitted his explanation. This writ petition is filed challenging the proceedings, dated 03.04.2008, stating inter alia that the proposed punishment is disproportionate and there was absolutely no basis for the same. Head the learned counsel for the petitioner. This Court finds it too difficult to entertain the writ petition at this stage. The main ground urged by the petitioner is that the charges are only in relation to a trivial matter and even if the same are proved, the proposed punishment cannot be inflicted. That, however, is a plea, which is also raised in the explanation submitted by the petitioner. It is for the disciplinary authority to take the explanation submitted by the petitioner into account and pass appropriate orders. There is no reason to think that the disciplinary authority would not apply its mind to various aspects including the proposed punishment. Hence, the writ petition is disposed of, directing that the disciplinary authority shall take the explanation submitted by the petitioner into account and pass appropriate orders. There shall be no order as to costs. __________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY,J Dt:19.06.2008. Note: Issue cc tomorrow. (b/o) Kdl ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{KSRANI}