IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE SIXTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 1093 of 2009 Between: Mohd. Jawad Ali S/o. Late Sri Mohd. Amjad Ali Office of the Sports Authority, A.P. R/o. 18-1-514/9/1 , Naseebnagar, Chandrayangutta, Hyderabad. ..... PETITIONER AND Vice Chairman, and Managing Director Sports Authority, A.P., Lalbahadur Stadium, Hyderabad-1 .....RESPONDENT Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court may be pleased to issue a writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus directing the respondent i.e, Vice-Chairman and Managing Director, Sports Authority of A.P. not to initiate any further steps to discharge the petitioner from service and with a consequential direction to the respondent to declare para 6 of the appointment of the petitioner as withdrawn. Counsel for the Petitioner : MR.V.RAJAGOPAL REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.: MR.V.CH.NAIDU The Court made the following : ORDER: The petitioner is a Record Assistant in Sports Authority of Andhra Pradesh. He remained absent from duties. Thereupon, a Charge Memo came to be issued by the respondent on 27-08- 2008. The petitioner submitted his explanation on 13-11-2007. The petitioner came to be discharged from service by the respondent under A.P. State and Subordinate Service Rules, 1996 vide proceedings No.SAAP /A3/3057/J/2008 dated 30-12-2008. The order of discharge is under challenge in the writ petition. 2. Rules nisi came to be issued on 29-01-2009. An interim suspension of notice dated 30-12-2008 also came to be granted on even date vide W.P.M.P.No.1378 of 2009. 3. The respondent entered appearance. 4. When the Writ Petition came up for admission- hearing, with the consent of both parties, the writ petition is taken up for final disposal. 5. It is not disputed by the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent that discharge of the petitioner from service is not preceded by any departmental enquiry. It is the contention of the petitioner that he has satisfactorily completed the probation period and therefore, any termination must be preceded by a regular departmental enquiry. Admittedly, the petitioner came to be discharged without there being any regular departmental enquiry. 5. In that view of the matter, the notice No.SAAP/A3/3057/J/2008 dated 30-12-2008 issued by the respondent is set aside reserving liberty to the respondent to conduct departmental enquiry on the charges levelled against the petitioner and pass appropriate orders in accordance with the A.P. State and Subordinate Services Rules. 6. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs. _________________________________ Justice B. SESHASAYANA REDDY Date: 06-03-2009. Dvs HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B. SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.1093 OF 2009 Dated 06-03-2009