ORDER
S.R. Nayak, J.
1. Rule Nisi, Sri. V.C. Ramulu, learned Standing Counsel for A.P.S.R.T.C., took notice for the respondents. The Writ Petition was heard finally with the consent of learned Counsel for the parties.
2. The petitioner is a delinquent against whom disciplinary proceedings are initiated by the respondent management. After receipt of the finding from the Enquiry Officer, a copy of the enquiry report was supplied to the delinquent/ petitioner and he was given an opportunity to submit his reply. The petitioner submitted his reply also. On consideration of the reply of the petitioner, the impugned second show-cause notice dated 19-7-1999 is issued proposing to impose penalty of removal from service as a disciplinary measure. It appears that on earlier occasion similar notice was issued on 11-5-1998 and the validity of the same was subject matter of judicial review before this Court in W.P.No. 17151 of 1998. A copy of the final order passed by this Court dated 21-6-99 in the above writ petition is annexed to the writ petition at pages 31 to 34 of the material papers. This Court opining that the impugned notice suffers from the vice of a degree of pre-judgment, thought it fit to intervene and accordingly the said notice was quashed, reserving liberty to the disciplinary authority to proceed to issue a fresh show-cause notice in accordance with law. Hence, this impugned notice.
3. The learned Counsel for the petitioner assailing the impugned second show-cause notice would highlight that the requirement that the delinquent should be furnished a copy of the enquiry report and he should be given an opportunity to have his say in the matter before the second show-cause notice is issued is not an empty formality, and there is a laudable objective behind the requirement that the disciplinary authority should apply its mind and consider the reply of the delinquent fairly and reasonably. Adverting to the facts of this case, the learned Counsel for the petitioner would maintain that the impugned second show-cause notice does not reflect such a fair and reasonable course adopted by the disciplinary authority. I do not think, it is necessary at this stage to go into the question, whether the objections raised by the petitioner/delinquent to the findings recorded by the enquiry officer are fairly dealt with or not and the same can be gone into at an appropriate stage.
4. The Supreme Court in United Pianters Association of Southern India v. K.C. Sangameshwran, , opined as under:-
“It has always been the philosophy of industrial jurisprudence that if the domestic enquiry held by the employer was defective, deficient, incomplete or not held at all, the Tribunal, instead of remanding the case to the enquiry officer for holding the enquiry de novo, would itself require the parties to produce their evidence so as to decide whether the charges, for which disciplinary action was against the employee, were established or not. The pending proceedings keep the employer and the employee in a stage of confrontation generating further misgivings and bitterness. It is, therefore, of paramount importance that such proceedings should come to an end at the earliest so as to maintain industrial peace and cordial relations between the management and the labour.”
If the explanation or reply offered by the petitioner is not properly received or considered by the disciplinary authority, it is always open for the petitioner to urge such ground in the event of the final order that may be made by the disciplinary authority goes against the petitioner, in an appropriate legal proceedings. The High Court need not and should not interdict the disciplinary proceedings at each and every stage of the disciplinary proceeding on the alleged ground of irregularity and illegality in conducting the departmental enquiry, and if the Court were to interfere, it will not aid the completion of the departmental enquiry as early as possible and it will generate misgivings and bitterness disturbing industrial peace, and the judgment of the Supreme Court in Sangameswaran’s case is an authority to say that the High Court shall not interdict the proceeding at every stage. In the instant case, the disciplinary proceedings is at the fag end, and therefore, interference of the Court in unwarranted. In that view of the matter, I keep open all the contentions raised in the writ petition to contest the correctness of certain findings recorded by the disciplinary authority in the second show-cause notice and reserving liberty to the petitioner to urge the same grounds in an appropriate legal proceedings should the final order that may be made by the disciplinary authority goes against him.
5. In the result, the Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs. If the petitioner/delinquent has not yet submitted his reply to the impugned second show cause notice, two weeks time is granted from today to submit the same.