ORDER
P. Venkatarama Reddi, ACJ
1. The learned Single Judge rejected the Writ Petition in limini on the representation made by the learned Counsel for the appellant that he would prefer an appeal against the impugned order of removal. The learned Counsel now urges that in view of the Judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in T.S.P. Rao v. APSRTC (WA No. 102 of 1996, dated 26-2-1996), the punishment cannot be sustained as there was denial of reasonable opportunity inasmuch as the enquiry report was not served before issuing the show cause notice proposing punishment. We cannot accept this contention. In that case, a copy of enquiry report was not served at all. It is not the ratio of the decision that in point of time, the copy of the enquiry report must first be served and thereafter only, the show cause notice proposing the punishment should be issued. The requirement of furnishing enquiry report
cannot be viewed as a retual, the idea being to enable the employee to make an effective representation with reference to the findings in the enquiry report and also with reference to the proposed punishment. No prejudice is caused to the appellant on account of the enquiry report being served alongwith the show-cause notice.
2. We therefore, see no merit in the Writ Appeal. The Writ Appeal is dismissed at the admission stage.