The High Court · 2025

..,RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of lhe constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High court may be pleased to issue a writ, order or direction more particurarry one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the impugned final orders I\/emo.No.cGM(HRDyGM(rR, L and Adm)/AS(DC)/po/Dc-i/59-c 1 r2o12-25, dated.25-02-2016 and impugned appeal rejection Memo. No.cGM(HRD)/cM/(Per.)AS(Dcypo(DC-1)tsg-c1t2012-35 Dt. 27-os-2011 issued by the 2nd respondent and quash the same as is iflegar, unfair, unwarranted, and erroneous as the Disciplinary authority or Appellate Authorities have failed to act appropriately and contrary to the law laid down by Apex court and consequently direct the respondenls to refund the recovered amount to the petitioner. l.A. NO: 1 OF 2017(WPMP. NO: 28952 OF 20171 Petition under section 151 cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court may be pleased to stay all further proceedings in pursuance of Memo.No'CGM(HRDyGf\il(lR' L & /of Adm)iAS(DC)/PO/DC-1 /ss-C 1 l2O 1 2-25' dated'25 -02-2Ol 6 and impu g ned appeal y59-C1/2012-35 Dt' rejection Memo No.CGM(HRD)/GM/(Per')AS(DC)/PO/(DC-1 27-05-2olTissuedbythe2ndrespondentPendingdisposaloftheaboveWrit Petition I.A. N :2 oF 2017 PMP. NO :3671AOF 2017 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition' the High Court may be pleased to stay the recovery of 15o/o amount from petitioneis salary out of Rs 29 80 Lakhs pursuanttotheMemoNo.CGM(HRDyGM(lR,L&Adm)/AS(DC)Po/DC-1/59- c1t2o12.25'daled'25-02-20,l6pendingdisposalofthewritpetition. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI BONDEMPALLYRAIvIULU ;;;;;;iio.in. n"'pondent No'1: GP FoR ENERGY ;;il;;i ioi it n".bonaeni t'to'z: sRl N'sREEDHAR REDDY' sc FoR TELANGANA TRANSCO " The Court made the following: ORDER 1 (r. wp_23295 )O7t NBK, ., THE HoN' BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHE EMAPAKA WRIT PETITION No.23295 of2077 ORDER: .consequent to a paper publication orr 14.03.2012 in the ,.Namasthe Telangana" Telugu Daity Nervspaper, on the alleged irregularities in thd construction of Moder sub-station at Erragadda for central power Training Institute (APCPDCL) (now TSSpDCL), an explanation was sought from the petitioner, who is Additional Assistant Engineer associated with the project. The petitioner submitted his expranation on r0.05.2013. Finding that the explanation unsatisfactory, a departmental enquiry was ordered against six charges framed against the petitioner.

1.1 The charges are to the effect that the petitioner had indulged in dereliction of duty whire executi,g the works in the area which does not pertain to his jurisdiction and without cbtaining written instructions from higher authorities thereby de'iating the proced,re; that the petitioner is reported to have indulged in grave irregtrrarities in execution of civir works and non-maintenance of "M-Book" th.reby rnisleading the organization and benefitting the contractor and causi,g loss to the organization; that the petitioner committed irregurarities while executing and completing the works including drawar .of material by December 2010 without obtaining approval or sanction for revised estimate; that the petitioner eommitted irregularities while claiming the bills in excess of the works carried out i.e., excess bill of Rs.33,47,43 2l- was done and paid to M/s Maria Electricals Limited for executing civit works outdoor Sub-substation. and No .,M- Book" was furnished for the works for providing JCB for removing rocks, Ieveling surrounding and removing tree and bushes for an amount of I ! 2 wp 23295_2071 NBK, J Rs.1,32,600, and that billing was done for Rs'6'000/- without executing the work for providing of transformer neutral current of PS' that an amount of Rs.5,69,5331 was paid to contractor for galvanization ol steel material even though there was no necessity for galvanization and exorbitant rates were claimedinthebill;thatthepetitionercommittedirregularitiesbyclaiming bilts by adopting excess rates and quantities than the prescribed quantity and rates without foltowing SSR rates for certain items and causing huge revenue loss to the organization and benefiting the contractor; that the petitioner was negligent and derelict in his duties by failing to devolute the excess material drawn even after completion of rvorks and claiming parl-bill for making payment to the contractor'

1.2 Petitioner submitted his explanation dated 20'02'2014 denying the charges. The Enquiry Offrcer conducted enquiry by obtaining the depositions of witnesses, namely, Mr' DR Prasad (the then CGMMaster Ptan), Mr. M. Sudhakar Reddy (ex-CGM)' Mr' K' chidambaraiah (ex- SE/Master Plan), Mr. Y. Venkanna (DE/ Master Plan-II)' Mr' P' Jayapal (SAOMaster Plan), Mr. P' Anjaiah (the then AOMaster Plan)' Mr' EM Chekravarthy(ex-ADE/Ir4asterPlan),andrecordedtheirstatements.After enquiry, he furnished a Report wherein the charges No'2' 4(a' b' c) and 6 were held to be proved against the petitioner' and other charges not proved' The Disciplinary authority, accepting the enquiry report, proposed imposition of the punishnient of "stoppage of two annual grade increments with cumulative effect besides recovering 15% from the amount oiRs'29'80 lakh loss sustained by the company" by Memo dated l8'07'20 t4' and called for an explanation from the petitioner by way of a Show Cause notice as to why the punishment could not be imposed' The petitioner submitted his explanation dated 25.09.2014. Thereafter, the above punishment was 3 wp_23295-2017 N8K, J imposed by Final order dated 25-02-2016-cha,enging the punishment, the petitioner filed an appeal, however, the same was rejected by Order dated 27 .05.2017 . Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner filed this writ petition. 2. Heard Mr. Bondempally Ramulu, leamed counsel for the petitioner; and Mr. N. Sreedhar Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for TSSpDCL Perused the record. 3' Having considered the respective submissions and perused the record, it is to be noted that it is given to understand that the project construction of an extemal lab and intemal lab for the central power Training Institute being the first of its kind, and an enquiry was initiated upon a paper publication with regard to the inegularities occurred in the execution of the Project. It is not the case ofthe petitioner that the petitioner was not informed of his involvement in the nature of irregularities, and on the contrary, explanation was sought from the petitioner and an enquiry duly following the principles of natural justice was tolowed by recording the depositions ofthe witnesses, who were also the menrbers of the team in the execution of the project. In the enquiry, the specific charges with regard to ,.non_ maintenance of M-Book,,, and the specific financial loss quantified at Rs'33,47,4321- of 'excess-bilring to favour M/s Maria Electricars Limited, and "non-fumishing of M-Book for an amount of Rs.r,32,600/- for the works relating to providing JCB for removing rocks, leveling surround and removing trees and bushes; and illegal bllling of Rs.6,000/_ without even executing the work for providing transformer neutral current of pS, and performing 'galvanization though it was not necessary thereby paying an amount of Rs.5,69,5331-; are held to be proved against the petitioner. Further, the failure to devolute the excess material drawn after completion of work and claiming part-bill for making the payment to the contractor has J .\] 4 -23295 -2011 NBK,I been proved against the petitioner' *":: tl:^::^:t:: i:ffi?:-ff:::: petitioner that were held proved after due enqulry participated and also submitted his explanation' The petitioner cannot plead that the enquiry officer was unethical in considering his explanation merely bebause the findings have gone against him, and it is to be noted that the findings are based on speciltc charges and evidence on record'

3.1 The contention being canvassed that he was merely "executing" the instructions of superior offtcers is not a card that can convenientiy be played by the petitioner in the aftermath of paper proceeding There is admittedty publication and a duly constituted^enquiry no plausible explanation for non-maintenance of M-Book' and it cannot be said that the petitioner was instructed not to maintain an M-Book and deviate from such procedures' Making payments to the contractors' as alteged in the Charges ar 4(a' b' c) relate to specific payments for specific works' and a payment olRs'6'000/- is said to have been paid without even executing the work of providing transformer neutral current to PS' and an amount of Rs.5.69,513 was paid to a work of galvanization that is not needed' thereby unduly benehting the contractor for unnecessary work and denting the pubtic exchequer by an overall estimated amount of Rs'29'80 lakhs'

3.2 It is to be noted that the petitioner is not a spectator at the worksite. instead he is executing the work as a responsible authority' and he is expected to execute the works in the manner they are to be executed by maintenance of proper records of works performed' payments made' approvals obtained etc'' as required under the departmental and project procedures. There is no material placed on record that the superior officers have aplroved the petitioner to make payments in excess amounts of actuai SSR rates. Though the Project is purportedly a first-of-its-kind' the petitioner .-.r, ./ 5 wp_)3295 _)Oa7 N8K,I is not a novice to officiar procedures ofexecuting a project, and the essential requirements while executing a project, like material drawn, work executed, verifoing the claims with SSR rates, maintaining M_Book, ensuring the satisfactory completion of work for release of payments, obtaining approval from the competent authority for settring biils/craims, etc., are undeniabry part and parcel of the works that the petitioner encounters on a da y basis. Except the pleading that the petitioner merely executed the instructions, there is no evidentiary material to prove that the specific findings on the Charges 4(a, b, c), with regard to pecuniary loss, are wrong. The record discloses that though charges Nos.2, 4(a, b, c) and 6 are proved against the petitioner in the departmental enquiry, the Disciplinary authority imposed a punishment of recovery of only l5% of the loss incurred on account of the lapses on the part of the petil.ioner. 4' It is settled law that this court under Article 226 is notan appellate authority to reappreciate the evidence and arrive at its own conclusions. The disciplinary authority is the sole judge of facts. Unless there is a procedurar irregularity, merely because an altemate view courd have been possible, cannot be the sole reason for this court to entertain a writ petition against the punishment iU a duly constituted enquiry proceeding. 5. At this juncture, it is relevant to refer to the judgment of the Hon,ble Supreme Court in State of Rajasthan v. Mohammed Ayub Nazr, wherein the apex Court, by referring to the earlier judgment in B.C. Chaturvedi v. Union of India2, held as follows: "When an inquiry is conducted on charges of misconduct by a public servant, the Court / Tribunal is concerned to determine whether the t LAWS (SC) 2005 1-6 (Civit Appeat No.939 of 2oo3) ' 199s SCC (6) 749 I 6 wp 23295-2011 NBK, J inquiry was held by a competent officer or whether rules of natural justice are complied with. Whether the findings or conclusions are based on some evidence, the authority entrusted with the power to hold inquiry has jurisdiction, power and authority to reach a finding of fact or conclusion. But that finding must be based on some evidence. Neither the technical rules of Evidence Act nor of proof of factorevidenceasdefinedtherein,applytodisciplinaryproceeding. Adequacy of evidence or reliability of evidence cannot be permitted to be canvassed before the Court/Tribunal' When the authority accepts the evidence and the conclusion receives support therefrom' the disciplinary authority is entitled to hold that the delinquent officer is guilty of the charge. The disciplinary autho ty is the sole judge of facts. Where appeal is presented, the appellate authority has co- extensive power to re-appreciate the evidence or the nature of punishment. The CourUTribunal in its power of iudicial review does not act as appellate authority to re-appreciate the evidence and to independent findings on the evidence' The arrive at its own interfere'where the authority held that the Court/Tribunal maY proceedings against the delinquent officer in a manner inconsistent withtherulesofnaturaliusticeorinviolationofstatutoryrules prescribing the mode of inquiry or where the conclusion or finding reached by the disciplinary authority is based on no evidence' lf the conclusion or finding be such as no reasonable person would have ever reached, the Coort / Tribunal may interfere with the conclusion or the finding and mould the relief so as to make it appropriate to the facts of that case." t

6.lntheinstantcase,itisnotthecaseofthepetitionerthatthe Disciptinary authority has, with a malafide or prejudicial intention, initiated proceedings against him. on the contrary, the irregularities came to notice of the authorities after a Daily ne\.spaper reported on the irregularities, conseA\rent to which an enquiry was initiated. The argument that the Charge ------- wp _23295 _2017 NAK, J nr,u.., has not been proved and therefore there No. l, which is broad cannot be locus for orrln rer charges, cannot be coL argument is to be accepted, there would nor o" rrr:tt::,,;O;:;ffi; other charges not onry in the instant case but in any departmentar proceeding in general. It is to be not and e v en speak a bo ut',":':t",,,";', l, J,, ;.1.].,;i, ;:" ::;ffi ::; Further' the competency of the chairman and Managing Director, who is at the helm of affairs in overall administrative functio in ordering an enquiry and imposing rhepunishmen,;::::H-J;:i"; of contention in the instant case, nor nulli$, the findings in the enquiry proceedings. Furthermor< reappreciared the entire;j}":::ffi",:j'il: ar the Board rever has ase of the petitioner' by way of a speaking Order dated 27 .05 .2017 . 7' In that view of the matter, this Court does not find any reasonable grounds to interfere with the impugned Orders dated 25.02.2016, and. 27.05.2017, passed by the Chairman & Managing Directoq and the Appel Iate Authority, respectively. 8' Accordingry' the writ petition is rlismissed. No costs. Misceraneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. SD/. AHMED ABDULLA KHAN ASSISTANT REGISTRAR To //TRUE COPY// SEC OFFICER Company Ltd., Mint Compound.

1. I!''e El"tgy Secretary, State of Telangana, T.S. Secretarial, Hyderabad. 2. The Chairman and Managing Director, T.S. Southern Power Distribution 3. One CC to SRI BONDEMPALLY RAMULU, Advocate [OPUC] 4. Two CCs to GP FOR ENERGY, High Court for the State of Telangana, at 5. ONE CC tO SRI N.SREEDHAR REDDY, SC FOR TELANGANA TRANSCO Hyderabad. [OUTI toPUCl

6. Two CD Copies PSK. PVL w l _-L! HIGH COURT DATED:1810712025 ORDER WP.No.23295 of 2017 ti{E 5fAii t., ck. e d .18 sEP 2125 t D ,j/rTC '-r(,o DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS ^%