( 1 ) THIS Appeal is against the order in W. P. No. 27159 of 2005 dated 14. 2. 2006 whereby the proceedings dated 07. 12. 2005, issued by the Appellants herein calling upon the respondent-writ petitioner to submit his representation to the charges held proved and asking him to show cause as to why the penalty specified in Section 4, Rule 4. 2 of the Staff Rules and Service Regulations of EPTRI should not be imposed, was quashed, the report of the enquiry officer set aside and the enquiry officer was directed to resume proceedings from the stage where the petitioner raised his objection to the competence of the Presenting Officer.

( 2 ) FACTS, to the extent necessary, are that the petitioner, an Administration and Accounts Officer in the Appellant -Institute, was placed under suspension vide proceedings dated 6. 6. 2005. A charge sheet dated 17. 6. 2005 was issued calling upon him to submit his explanation. The petitioner submitted his explanation, to the charge sheet, vide letter dated 21. 7. 2005. Sri K. Kumar was appointed as the enquiry officer and Sri T. V. Satish Babu, Administration Incharge of the Institute was appointed as the presenting officer. The petitioner, vide letter dated 29. 10. 2005, contended that, under the prescribed procedure, the presenting officer must be superior in rank to the charged employee and since the presenting officer Sri T. V, Satish Babu was subordinate to him, he could not have been appointed as the presenting officer. This objection was over-ruled by the enquiry officer on 10. 11. 2005. The enquiry officer proceeded with the enquiry and submitted his report holding that the charges framed against the petitioner was established. The disciplinary authority issued show cause notice dated 7. 12. 2005 calling upon the petitioner to explain as to why punishment should not be imposed on him.

( 3 ) IT is this show cause notice, dated 7. 12. 2005, which was the subject matter of challenge in W. P. No. 27159 of 2005. The learned Judge framed two questions for consideration (1) Whether the Presenting Officer was not qualified to be appointed as such and (2) Whether the impugned show cause notice suffered from any infirmity. On the first question, the learned Judge referred to Clause 14 of the conditions of service of the Institute and held that government orders were not per se applicable to the service in the institute and it was only when they were accepted and authenticated by the Board that such government orders became applicable. The learned Judge held that since the petitioner was not able to place any proceedings or orders through which the Board of the Institute had adopted the memo dated 1. 5. 1993, and in view of the clear legal and factual position, the necessity to delve into the rival contentions as to the equation of the status of the petitioner on the one hand and of the Presenting Officer on the other was obviated. The learned Judge held this question against the petitioner.

( 4 ) ON the second question, the learned Judge took note of the fact that the petitioner had submitted an appeal to the 1st appellant herein on 16. 11. 2005, against the order of the enquiry officer dated 10. 11. 2005, that he had also brought this fact, of an appeal being preferred, to the notice of the enquiry officer, vide letter dated 16. 11. 2005, despite which the enquiry officer had proceeded to examine the witnesses and to record his findings without participation of the petitioner. The learned Judge held that, even assuming that the appeal preferred by the petitioner was either not maintainable or did not merit consideration, fairness required thkt the enquiry proceedings were deferred till the appeal itself was disposed of one way or the other. The learned judge held that, in disciplinary proceedings, fairness in procedure was an important protection guaranteed to an employee and since the appellate authority did not pronounce upon the objection raised, the petitioner was ent