IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE FIRST DAY OF MAY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 9458 of 2009 Between: Ch. Balakrishna, S/o. Late Sri Lakshmi Narayana, R/o. H.No.7-6-42, Enugu Mahal Street, New Colony, Srikakulam. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 A.P. State Housing Corporation Ltd., Rep by its Managing Director, 3-6-184, Urdu Galli, Himayathnagar, Hdyerabad, 2 The District Collector/Executive Direcot-Housing, A.P. State Housing Corporation Ltd., Srikakulam,. Srikakulam District. 3 The Deputy Executive Engineer(housing)/Enquiry Officer, A.P. State Housing Corporation Ltd., Srikakulam, Srikakulam District. ..RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.C.RAGHU Counsel for the Respondents: MR.K.MOHAN RAMI REDDY The Court made the following : O R D E R: This writ petition is filed for a writ of Mandamus to set aside order dated 28-01-2009 passed by the Managing Director of respondent No.1-Corporation, whereby the petitioner is removed from service apart from ordering for recovery of Rs.13,36,250/- with 12% interest. At the hearing, Sri C.Raghu, learned counsel for the petitioner, has not disputed that under the extant service regulations, the petitioner has got a right of appeal. He, however, advanced two submissions for bypassing the said remedy, namely; the order of the disciplinary authority is not supported by any reasons and this Court entertained a writ petition being W.P.No.6004 of 2009, which was filed by the petitioner therein without availing the remedy of appeal. In my considered view, both these submission of the learned counsel cannot be accepted. With regard to the first submission, a perusal of the impugned order shows that the disciplinary authority recorded the facts and findings of the Enquiry Officer and concurred with the enquiry report. Even if the disciplinary authority has not discussed in detail the contents of the explanation, it can at best be said that the impugned order is not supported by proper and detailed reasons. Inadequacy of reasons contained in the order cannot be a ground for the petitioner to approach this Court without availing the remedy of appeal because in a disciplinary proceeding, the validity of the order of the disciplinary authority can be judged by the appellate authority with reference to the enquiry report, explanation of the petitioner and other relevant material, which is available on record. Therefore, the first submission of the learned counsel is rejected. As regards the second submission, in W.P.No.6004 of 2009, while entertaining the said writ petition, it is specifically noted by this Court as under- “On perusal of the impugned order and the enquiry report, I am, prima facie, satisfied that the petitioner is denied reasonable opportunity in the enquiry and the finding of the enquiry officer is not supported by proper reasons in order to find the petitioner guilty of misconduct. Hence, the impugned order is suspended. In this case, admittedly, the petitioner was given reasonable opportunity and he participated in the enquiry. Therefore, the ground of violation of principles of natural justice raised in W.P.No.6004 of 2009 is not available to the petitioner in the instant case. Hence, the second contention is also rejected. For the above mentioned reasons, the writ petition is dismissed. The learned counsel for the petitioner requested for granting time to the petitioner to file appeal and also to stay the recovery till such time as he files appeal. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioner is permitted to file appeal, within a period of four (4) weeks from today, and till then, the amount shall not be recovered from the petitioner. As a sequel to dismissal of main petition, WPMP No.12345 of 2009 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Dated 1st May, 2009 vrn