THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE J.SREENIVAS RAO WRIT PETITION No.5853 OF 2016

ORDER

This Writ Petition has been filed, seeking Wirt of Mandamus declaring the proceedings issued by 2^nd respondent in SSDC/ADMN/2014-15, dated 22.08.2014, imposing punishment of stoppage of one annual grade increment without cumulative effect and treating the suspension period from 07.09.2013 to 22.08.2014 as leave and further declaring the rejection of the appeal by the 2nd respondent in proceedings No.SSDC/Admn/2015-16, dated 28.09.2015 as illegal, arbitrary and contrary to law.

2. It appears from the record that during the pendecy of the writ petition, the sole petitioner died and the petitioner Nos.2 to

4 are on record as his legal representatives.

3. Heard Sri M.Srikanth, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri A.V.V.S.N.Murthy, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondents.

3.1. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner No.1 was appointed as Seed Officer in respondent No.2/Corporation on 03.01.1986 and subsequently he was promoted as Assistant Manager. While discharging services as Assistant Manager (Quality Control) Lab in-charge at Kurnool Regional Office, a charge memo was issued to him on the 05.09.2013 on the alleged ground that he was not attended the office regularly and due to which the results of the samples, received from 22.07.2013 to 26.07.2013 i.e., 223 samples in 5 consignments, were communicated to the concerned units on 19.08.2013 and also the results of samples received from 29.07.2013 to 06.08.2013 in 4 consignments were communicated on 20.08.2013 and further alleged that the petitioner is not maintaining attendance register properly and also did not put his initials in any registers. Petitioner submitted an explanation on 27.01.2014 denying the charges leveled against him.

3.2. Respondent No.2 not satisfying with the same ordered enquiry by appointing an Enquiry Officer. Learned counsel further submits that during the course of enquiry, the Enquiry Officer has not given reasonable opportunity to the petitioner to defend his case and submitted the enquiry report, without giving any findings simply stating that the charge leveled against the petitioner is proved.

3.3. The disciplinary authority without properly considering the objections submitted by the petitioner imposed penality of stoppage of one Annual Grade Increment without cumulative effect and treating the suspension period i.e., from 07.09.2013 to 22.08.2014 as leave. Aggrieved by the same, petitioner filed appeal and the appellate authority without considering the grounds raised by the petitioner simply confirmed the order of the primary authority without giving any reasons by order dated

28.09.2015.

3.4. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that the charge leveled against the petitioner is very vague, and basing on the said charge memo only, the disciplinary authority imposed punishment and the same is contrary to law.

3.5. In support of his contention, he relied upon the Judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Roop Singh Negi vs. Punjab National Bank and Others, in Civil Appeal No.7431 of 2008, dated 19.12.2008.

4. Per Contra the learned counsel for respondents submits that the respondent No.2/Corporation after following procedure issued Charge Memo and after considering the explanation, appointed Enquiry Officer to conduct regular enquiry. The Enquiry Officer after conducting detailed enquiry, submitted enquiry report on 23.05.2014 and the same was furnished to the petitioner and sought objection. The disciplinary authority after considering the explanation submitted by the petitioner and after due verification of the records, passed the impugned order on 22.08.2014, imposing minor punishment “stoppage of one annual grade increment without cumulative effect” and also treated the suspension period as “on leave”. The said order was confirmed by the appellate authority through order dated 28.09.2015, and there is no illegality and irregul