APHC010503312005 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI WRIT PETITION NO: 10401 of 2005 Bench Sr.No:-28 [3506] Sri Ch. Sekhar ...Petitioner Vs. The Regional Manager and Others ...Respondent(s) ********** Advocate for Petitioner: Sri. A. NARASIMHA RAO Advocate(s) for Respondent(s): Smt. V.UMA DEVI, Sri. K.SRINIVASA MURTHY CORAM :SRI JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN DATE : 12th March 2026 ORDER: This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution seeking following relief: “to issue order more particularly in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the order passed by the 1st Respondent in Proc.No.VRO: PER: 19-162, dt.29.12.2003 and confirmed by the 3rd and 4th Respondent in Proc.No.HOPERSHS 5302/2004, dt.23.9.2004 and HOPER 95805, dt.15.3.2005 as illegal, contrary and as the same is in violation of principles of natural justice and pass other order or orders this Honble Court deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.” 2 CGR, J W.P. No.10401 of 2005 2. (a) Petitioner was working as Generator Operator-cum- Electrician at Regional Office of the 1st respondent bank. Based on complaint dated 01.12.2003, stated to have been given by one Mr.D.S.R.Anjaneyulu, Assistant Manager, that the petitioner has visited his residence and abused in unparliamentary language for depriving petitioner’s promotion, charge memo came to be issued on 29.12.2003 along with statement of imputation. Petitioner submitted explanation on 23.01.2004. (b) Considering the same, the disciplinary authority eventually passed orders dated 06.04.2004 imposing penalty of withholding two increments for a period of two years in terms of Rule 23(b) of General Insurance (Conduct, Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1975. (c) Appeal preferred against the said order came to be dismissed vide orders dated 23.09.2004 and even further appeal in the nature of Memorial before Chairman – cum – Managing Director (CMD) of respondent bank also stood rejected vide order dated 15.03.2005. (d) Assailing the same, present writ petition is filed. (e) Respondents filed counter opposing the writ petition. 3. Heard Sri A.Narasimha Rao, learned counsel for petitioner. He mainly contended that the impugned order of disciplinary 3 CGR, J W.P. No.10401 of 2005 authority as confirmed by both appellate authority as well as the 4th respondent - CMD failed to consider that there was absolutely no evidence on record in support of the charge levelled against petitioner that petitioner has visited the residence of Assistant Manager and abused him in unparliamentary language, and further that the disciplinary authority, having relied on the preliminary enquiry report, ought to have furnished copy before passing the impugned order. Therefore, the procedure adopted is clearly vitiated on account of violation of principles of natural justice. 4. None appeared for respondents. However, the contents of counter are taken note of. 5. Perused the record. 6. The enquiry came to be initiated on account of the complaint stated to have been given by Assistant Manager on 01.12.2003. Based on said complaint, statement of imputation was furnished to petitioner, calling upon to submit explanation. Petitioner has submitted explanation denying the same. The disciplinary authority, having gone through the allegations levelled against petitioner and material available before him, ultimately, has come to conclusion that the charge alleged was found to be proved and 4 CGR, J W.P. No.10401 of 2005 accordingly, has imposed punishment of penalty of withholding two increments for a period of two years. 7. Petitioner preferred appeal against the said order, contending that the charges be dropped and the penalty be withdrawn. The appellate authority, after examining the grounds of appeal and documents on record, has recorded satisfaction that the disciplinary authority was justified in imposing the punishment. Even the second appellate authority also held so. 8. Though learned counsel for petitioner tried to contend that this is a case of no evidence and that preliminary enquiry report was not furnished, such grounds were not raised before the first and second appellate authorities. Therefore, this Court is of the opinion that petitioner cannot be permitted to raise fresh grounds which otherwise were not raised before the appellate authorities. This Court, exercising certiorari jurisdiction, is required to see whether the order passed is without jurisdiction or that the enquiry has been concluded in accordance with the statutory rules and due opportunity has been given to the petitioner, and that this Court would not reappraise the evidence and sit in appeal against the orders under challenge. 5 CGR, J W.P. No.10401 of 2005 9. In that view of the matter, this Court does not find any merit in the writ petition. Accordingly, the same stands dismissed. No costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending consideration, if any, in this case shall stand closed. _______________________ CHALLA GUNARANJAN, J SS