B CHANDRAMOULI Vs. GENERAL MANAGER MEDAK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is employed as Assistant General Manager in the District Co-operative Central Bank, Medak. Disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him, and he was placed under suspension. A charge- sheet was issued, and an enquiry officer was appointed. The Enquiry Officer submitted his report on 1-10-2004, holding that the charges framed against the petitioner are not proved. The respondent, however, issued a show cause notice through proceedings dated 19-11-2004, by observing that, he differs with the findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer, and treats the same as having been proved. The petitioner was required to show cause as to why he snould not be dismissed from service. The same is challenged in this writ petition.

(2.) Sri R.V. Nagabhushan Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order is violative of principles of natural justice and settled principles of law. He also submits that not being the appointing authority, the respondent has no jurisdiction to issue the impugned show- cause notice. He contends that even where the disciplinary authority proposes io differ with the findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer, he has to issue notice to the concerned, and it is only after taking the explanation into account, that further steps can be taken. Learned counsel submits that, in the present case, the respondent arrived at a conclusion that the charges against the petitioner are proved, without hearing the petitioner, for this purpose.

(3.) Smt. Bobba Vijayalakshmi, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, submits that the writ petition is not maintainable against the show cause notice. She submits that it is always open to the respondent to differ with the findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer, and that he has already indicated the reasons for differing with the findings. She submits that the opinion expressed by the respondent in the show cause notice is tentative and that the final decision will be taken only after considering the explanation, that may be submitted by the petitioner.