N.Udaya Bhaskar v. Eastern Power Distribution Company of A P Limited, P&T Colony, Seethammadhara, Visakhapatnam

Counsel for the Respondents: V V SATISH (SC for APEPDCL) The Court made the following order: 4 HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM WRIT PETITION No.15216 OF 2016 ORDER: The instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of Constitution of India seeking the following main prayer: “to issue a writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the letter bearing Lr.No. DEE/O/RCP/JAO/ADM/SA-2/D.No.1520/15, dated 17.11.2015 of the 4th respondent and consequential order issued by the 5th respondent in Memo NO.DEE/O/KKD/JAO/ADM/C1/D.No.27/15/15,

07.12.2015 proposing to recover an amount of Rs.1,77,900/- from the salary of the petitioner as illegal, arbitrary and violative of the principles of natural justice and consequently, direct the respondents to drop all further proceedings against the petitioner forthwith in this regard and pass….”

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner Sri N.Siva Reddy, and Ms.Iswarya Chowdary, learned counsel representing Sri V.V.Satish, learned Standing Counsel for respondents Corporation.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was appointed as Assistant Engineer in the erstwhile A.P.State Electricity Board on 22.08.1992 and later he was promoted as 5 Assistant Divisional Engineer, Operation in the 1st respondent Corporation and worked at Ramachandrapuram from 2002 to 2005. Thereafter, he worked in the same cadre from 2005 to middle of 2014 at different places and at last, he was transferred to Kakinada in the year 2014. Thereafter, he was promoted as Divisional Engineer, Electrical at Kakinada.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that while the petitioner was working as Assistant Divisional Engineer at Ramachandrapuram, the 4th respondent addressed a letter vide Lr.No.DEE/O/RCP/JAO/ADM/SA-2/D.No.1520/15, Dt: 17.11.2015 to the 5th respondent, whereunder, he requested the Divisional Electrical Engineer, Operation, Kakinada to recover an amount of Rs.1,77,900/- from the petitioner and inform the same to the said office so as transmit the compliance report to CGRF, Visakhapatnam.

5. Consequent to the impugned notice dated 17.11.2015, 5th respondent issued a memo No.DEE/O/KKD/JAO/ADM/C1/ D.No.2715/15, dated 07.12.2015, to the petitioner directing him to show cause as to why the amount of Rs.1,77,900/- should not be recovered from the salary of the petitioner, within a period of seven 6 (07) days from the date of receipt of said memo and thereby called for explanation. Challenging the said letter dated 17.11.2015 addressed by the 4th respondent to 5th respondent and the memo dated 07.12.2015, issued by the 5th respondent to the petitioner, the present writ petition was instituted before this Court.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that this Court granted interim stay as prayed for on 29.04.2016. Consequently, till today, no recovery was made by the respondent authorities against the petitioner.

7. The learned Standing Counsel respondents Corporation submits that though the respondent authorities filed a counter inter alia contending several contentions in view of subsequent events, more particularly, in terms of interim orders passed by this Court, the respondents have not initiated any proceedings against the petitioner and presently, the petitioner is working as Deputy Engineer at Kakinada.

8. When the matter is taken up for hearing, learned Standing Counsel the respondents fairly submits in view of subsequent events taken place in the lis, more particularly, an 7 amount of Rs.1,77,900/- was not paid the complainant CGRM(Consumer Grievance Redressel Forum), Visakhapatnam, till today.

9. Learned counsel the petitioner mainly attacked impugned orders on the ground of violation of principles of natural justice in not providing relevant documents to the petitioner so as to give him an opportunity to give effective explanation to the authorities concerned.

10. After going through the record, apparently it is clear that before giving the impugned letter dated 17.11.2015 which was the basis for recovery of the amount from the petitioner, no opportunity was offered the petitioner by providing relevant documents. Consequent to the letter dated 17.11.2015 of the 4th respondent, the 5th respondent is merely acted upon and gave the present show cause notice. Hence, the same is in violation of principles of natural justice.

11. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, in State Bank of India and Others v. Rajesh Agarwal and Others1, has authoritatively settled 1 2023 (6) SCC 1 8 the legal position by holding that the doctrine of audi alteram partem constitutes an essential and inalienable component of Article 14 of the Constitution of India, and cannot be dispensed with except where expressly excluded by statute or by necessary implication. The Apex Court categorically observed that adherence to procedural fairness mandates the issuance of a prior notice, due disclosure of all adverse material relied upon, and the grant of a meaningful and effective opportunity to submit a representation before any final decision is taken. It was further held that any departure from these foundational requirements would amount to a manifest violation of the principles of natural justice.

12. Subsequently in a very recent case, In Mukund K. Pai & Ors. v. Punjab National Bank & Ors.2, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the unilateral downward consequential deduction of salary without issuing any prior notice or affording an opportunity of hearing, was in clear violation of the principles of natural justice. The Apex Court categorically ruled that absence of notice and hearing vitiates the impugned action, rendering the salary deduction is illegal 22025 SCC Online SC 179 and unsustainable in law, and accordingly set aside orders for want 9 of procedural fairness.

13. Therefore, in view of the above facts and circumstances coupled with the settled legal principles, the impugned letter dated

17.11.2015, which is the basis for passing the present show cause notice is against the principles of natural justice.

14. In the light of the above, the impugned letter dated 17.11.2015 passed by the 4th respondent as well as its consequential notice dated 07.12.2015 passed by the 5th respondent are hereby set aside on the ground of violation of principles of natural justice. However, respondent authorities are at liberty to initiate appropriate steps against the petitioner if any, strictly in accordance with law.

15. The writ petition is accordingly allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions pending if any, shall stand closed. Date:31.12.2025 Rns ______________________________ MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM, J 10 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM WRIT PETITION No.15216 of 2016 Date:31.12.2025 Rns