IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction)

TUESDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT

PRESENT

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY

WRIT PETITION No. 5330 of 2008

Between:

B.Rama Swamy S/o.Manneyya, JMJ Nujiveedu Branch, SBI Krishna District

..... PETITIONER

AND

1 The Deputy General Manager, DP Section, State Bank of India., Zonal office, Vijayawada, Krishna District.

2 The General Manager,Net Work-II SBI.,DP Department Local Head office, Hyderabad.

3 The Chief General Manager, And Appellate Authority SBI Local Head office, Hyderabad.

.....RESPONDENTS

Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue a writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus to declare the action of the respondents in issuing proceedings Note No.DPS/36 dated 27.4.2007 and orders dated 25.10.2007 as illegal, arbitrary, and violative of the principles of natural justice and apart from violation of Articles 14&16 of the Constitution of India and set aside the same in the interest of justice.

Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.C.SRINIVASA BABA

Counsel for the Respondents: SMT.Y.PADMAVATHI

The Court made the following:

ORDER:

The petitioner was imposed a punishment of reduction in time scale by two stages, for a period of one year, without cumulative effect, through order, dated 22.04.2007, by the second respondent. It was also observed that such punishment shall not adversely affect the petitioner's pension. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the first respondent. The appeal was also rejected, vide order, dated 27.04.2007. The same is challenged in this writ petition.

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents.

The main ground urged on behalf of the petitioner is that the punishment inflicted upon him is a major penalty and that it ought to have been preceded by a departmental enquiry.

The learned Standing Counsel for the respondents has placed before this Court the Circulars, through which the relevant provisions were amended. The punishment of reduction in time scale was treated as minor penalty and the Rules were also amended with effect from 31.08.2004 dispensing with the departmental enquiry in such cases. Hence, it cannot be said that there is any procedural lapse on the part of the respondents. Further, the petitioner did not assail the validity of the Rules, which are applicable to the facts of the case.

Hence, the writ petition is dismissed, leaving it open to the petitioner to assail the validity of the relevant Rules, if he is so advised. There shall be no order as to costs.

18.03.2008

_____________

kdl

..... REGISTRAR

// TRUE COPY //

SECTION OFFICER

To 1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies

Form-NIC-OGS/WP{TRK}