- (1.) Leave granted. Heard the counsel for the parties.
(2.) This appeal is directed against the judgment of a division bench of the A. P. High court disposing of the writ appeal with certain directions. The writ petition was dismissed by the learned Single Judge.
(3.) The respondent-writ petitioner was working as a Development Officer under the appellant-Board. On 25/5/1987, as many as 49 charges were framed and served upon him and a disciplinary enquiry held. The Enquiry Officer found 29 out of 49 charges proved. A show-cause notice dated 4/5/19888 was issued calling upon the respondent to show cause why he should not be dismissed from service. After considering his explanation, he wasdismissed from service by proceedings dated 25/5/1988. The respondent challenged the said order by way of writ petition. One of the contentions urged before the learned Single Judge was that the order of suspension as well as the order of dismissal was not passed by the Chairman but by some other incompetent authority. This contention was rejected by the learned Single Judge in the following words: "In the counter it is stated that the charge memo was issued with the approval of the Chairman and the enquiry officer was also appointed with the approval of the Chairman. A perusal of the records shows that the entire proceedings were taken with the approval of the Chairman commencing from the order of suspension to the date of the impugned order. The Note File of the Board contains the signatures of the Chairman on 24/5/1987 and 20/11/1987 to the effect that the impugned proceedings were issued by the Chairman. As the Chief Executive Officer is the authority to communicate the proceedings and hence, all the proceedings were only signed by him, but the Note File reveals that the Chairman approved the proceedings. The contention of the petitioner therefore has no substance. " (emphasis supplied);