A. Venkateswarlu v. Hills, Hyderabad
Case at a glance
Outcome
Dismissed
petition is dismissed as totally meritless
Judgment
Cause title
Counsel for the Petitioner:SMT.S.V.INDIRA Counsel for the Respondents:MR.P.R.BALARAMI REDDY(SC FOR AP TRANSCO) The Court made the following :
ORDER:
This writ petition is filed for a writ of mandamus to set aside show cause notice vide Memo No.GM(Per)/AS(Per)/PO(DC-II)/1494-C4/04-24, dated 28.09.2007 issued by respondent No.1. The petitioner is working as Assistant Divisional Engineer in respondent No.1 Corporation. Disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him wherein the following charge has been framed:
That you A.Venkateswarlu, S/o Ramulu while working as Assistant Divisional Engineer/Stores/Nalgonda during the period between 1-3-2004 to 26-7-2004 issued material on the requisition numbers 9635, 9637 and 9638 of Assistant Divisional Engineer/Operation/Ramannapet Assistant false work Engineer/Operation/Valigonda mentioning different orders for the same work and also issued material on requisition number 9636 without work order and thus you have committed the above irregularities, exhibited lack of integrity, devotion to duty and conduct unbecoming of a member of service and thereby contravened Rule 4 (XXXXI) & 9 XXXXIV) and Rule 5 of APSEB Revised Employees Conduct Regulations 1978 (Misconduct within the meaning of Regulation of 6 of APSEB Employees Discipline AP Appeal TRANSCO/APCPDCL).
Reuglations adopted The enquiry officer after holding enquiry, submitted enquiry report to the Chairman and Managing Director of respondent No.1, who is the disciplinary authority.
Thereafter, the disciplinary authority issued show cause notice, dated 28.09.2007 wherein while differing with the finding of the enquiry officer, he called upon the petitioner to show cause why punishment of reversion to lower cadre i.e. A.E. shall not be imposed on him. In response to the said show cause notice, the petitioner submitted his explanation on 31.10.2007. Subsequently, the petitioner changed his heart and filed this writ petition questioning the show cause notice. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents and perused the record, I am of the view that this writ petition is wholly misconceived. I have not felt persuaded to accept the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the show cause notice does not contain the reasons for the disciplinary authority to differ with the finding of the enquiry officer.
Operative part
In paragraph 3 of the impugned show cause notice, the disciplinary authority clearly stated that the petitioner issued materials without verification of proper work orders and quantities and accordingly, he came to the provisional conclusion to impose the above mentioned punishment on the petitioner. The disciplinary authority has thus, spoken its mind on the area of its disagreement with the enquiry officer. The petitioner having filed the explanation to the said show cause notice, filed this writ petition without waiting for passing of final order by the disciplinary authority obviously to preempt it to pass a final order. When the power of differing with the findings of the enquiry officer is conferred on the disciplinary authority, this Court cannot interdict the disciplinary authority from exercising such a power. In this view of the matter, the writ petition is dismissed as totally meritless. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 30th MARCH, 2009.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.