IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE FIFTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 10358 of 2008 Between: B. Nagendra prasad, S/o B. Laxmaiah Andhra Pragathi Grameena bank, Gowniwaripalli (Villge), Gorantla Mandal, Anantapur District. ... PETITIONER AND 1 Andhra Pragathi Grameena Bank rep.by its Chairman, having its Head office at Opp Officer's Club Near Lakshmiranga Theatre, Kadapa. 2 The General manager, Andhra Pragathi Grameena Bank Head Office, Opp. Officer's Club Near Lakshmiranga Theatre, Kadapa. ...RESPONDENTS 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 any Writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of mandamus declaring the Regulations No. 38(ii) of the Andhra Pragathi Grameena Bank (Officers and Employees) Service Regulations, 2006 and also the proceedings of the 2nd respondent commencing from vide Ref. No. 8/STF/Ir/0894/2008 dated 09-02-2008 as arbitrary, illegal, void discriminatory, violative of Article 14 of Constitution of India, and consequently set a side the same and pass such other order or orders. Counsel for the Petitioner:DR.P.B.VIJAY KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent No.: MR.K.SRINIVASA MURTHY The Court made the following : O R D E R: The petitioner is working as Clerk-cum-Cashier in 1st respondent bank. A show-cause notice dated 9.2.2008, was issued to him, requiring him to explain as to why necessary disciplinary action shall not be taken. The necessary factual background was indicated. The service conditions of the employees of the 1st respondent are governed by a set of Service Regulations, framed in the year 2006. Regulation 38 classifies the penalties under the headings of penalties for minor misconduct and those for major misconduct. Under proviso to Rule 38(II), the 1st respondent reserved to itself, the right not to hold departmental enquiry, in case, it is proposed to impose the punishment of removal or dismissal. The apprehension of the petitioner is that though several other major penalties are enlisted under the rule, the holding of enquiry is restricted only to the instances of dismissal and removal, and there is every likelihood of the respondents, imposing major penalty, other than the removal and dismissal, after conducting enquiry. In that context, he assails the legality of the provision referred to above, as well as the show-cause notice, dated 9.2.2008. Heard Sri P.B. Vijaya Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Sri K.Srinivasa Murthy, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. Under the Service Regulations, the penalties, which may be imposed against the employees, are classified as under: “II. Employees: - (a) Penalties for minor misconduct: (i) Censure, (ii) Recording of adverse remarks against him (iii) Withholding of increment for a period not exceeding 6 months. (b) Penalties for major misconduct: (i) Fine, (ii) Withholding of increment(s), (iii) Withdrawal of special allowance, (iv) Reduction of pay to next lower stage upto a maximum period of 2 years in case the staff has reached the maximum in the scale of pay, (v) removal from service which shall not be disqualification for future employment, (vi) Dismissal:” The proviso to the said Regulation reads as under: “...Provided further that an enquiry need not be held if: (i) the misconduct is such that even if proved, the Bank does not intend to impose punishment of removal or dismissal; and (ii) the Bank has issued a show-cause notice to the employee advising him of the misconduct and the punishment for which he may be liable for such misconduct; and (iii) the employee makes a voluntary admission of his guilt in his reply to the aforesaid show cause notice.” From a reading of this, an impression can be gathered that the necessity to conduct disciplinary enquiry would arise, only when the respondents propose the punishment of removal or dismissal. It, however, needs to be observed that the proviso is only in the form of a further explanation to the rest of the rule, and no where it is pointed that the bank would impose major penalties, without conducting enquiry. In fact, holding of a departmental enquiry is a sine qua non, for imposing any major penalty. In view of this clear legal position, it is not necessary to hold any provision of the Service Regulations as illegal or ultra vires. The respondents issued a show-cause notice to the petitioner, by pointing out several acts and omissions. The petitioner has already submitted his explanation on 18.2.2008. It is for the respondents to take the explanation into account, and decide the further course of action. As of now, the petitioner cannot be said to have had any cause of action. The writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of, leaving it open to the respondents to pass necessary orders, on the basis of the explanation submitted by the petitioner. There shall be no order as to costs. ______________ 2nd May 2008 PAN