S. PARVATHA RAO, J.

( 1 ) THE petitioner seeks a Writ of Certiorari to quash the order in ROC. ; No. 18/96. C. II/1, dated 30-4-1996 passed by the 1st respondent and to direct the respondents to give all consequential benefits, etc.

( 2 ) THE petitioner states that he was appointed as Copyist on 10-5-1982, and that he was promoted as Typist in the year 1983 and worked in several places in Kurnool District. While he was working as Typist in the Sub-Court at atmakur, disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him by the 2nd respondent herein on 10-2-1993. The Principal Subordinate Judge, Kurnool was appointed as an Enquiry Officer to conduct the enquiry against him. The enquiry Officer framed seven charges and found charges 3 and 4 proved in his enquiry report dated 22-8-1994 in Enquiry No. 1 of 1993. The 2nd respondent agreed with the Enquiry Officer as regardshis findings on charges 3 and 4, but disagreed with him as regards findings on charge No. 5 and found that charge also proved against the petitioner herein in his order in Dis. No. 7822/estt/95 dated 24-11-1995. It is stated in the said order that on those findings, a show-cause notice was issued to the petitioner as to why his pay should not be reduced to the minimum in the time scale of pay of Junior assistant/typist. After detailed considering (sic. consideration of) the representation of the petitioner to the said show-cause notice, the 2nd respondent held as follows:"in view of the fact that the proved charges relate to indiscipline, neglect of duty, evasion or avoidance of work and misbehaviour towards officers and other members of the staff, a lenient view cannot be taken. But, however I am of the opinion that instead of the punishment of reduction of pay to the minimum in the time scale, the punishment of stoppage of two annual increments of the delinquent with cumulative effect would sub-serve the cause of justice". In the result, he awarded the punishment of stoppage of two annual increments of thedelinquent with cumulative effect. That was questioned by the petitioner by way of Writ Petition No. 27982 of 1995 before this court. The said Writ petition was disposed of by a learned single Judge by his order dt. 20-12-1995 directing the said Writ Petition to be treated as an administrative Appeal on the administrative side of the High Court. Pursuant to the said direction, the High Court considered the matter as an appeal preferred by the petitioner on the administrative side of the High Court and disposed of the same by the following order, impugned now. "after consideration of the appeal of Sri B. Balasudarshan, Typist, Family court, Kurnool 1st read above and the letter of the District Judge, Kurnool 2nd read above and also the connected record, the High Court holds that there is no substance in the appeal, that the punishment awarded is also proper and that, therefore, the appeal is liable to be dismissed. "

( 3 ) THE petitioner questions the said order of the High Court describing it as an order of the 1st respondent i. e. , The Registrar (Management ). That is not correct. The 1st respondent only purports to communicate the decision of the High Court. That is clear from the statement: "the High Court holds that there is no substance in the appeal. "

( 4 ) APART from the grounds raised in the Writ Petition No. 27982 of 1995, the only additional ground raised in the present Writ Petition by the petitioner is that the said appellate order dated 30-4-1996 is not a speaking order and that it does not give any reasons while confirming the order of the 2nd respondent and, therefore, is bad. Two of the grounds raised in the present writ Petition, which were also raised in Writ Petition No. 27982 of 1995, arc that the charges were vague and that no reasonable opportunity was given to the petitioner inasmuch as the documents sought by him were not furnished and that the witnesses sought to be examined by him were not allowed to be examined. Before proceeding furth

Click Here to Read the rest of this document