High Court · 2025

1 Smt.G.Anuradha,W/oLateGVittal'Aged45years'occ:Housewife'R/o hoad' sanga Reddv' Sansa H.No4-7-13/3, sinsur t;amii;l;;'v: H.OAY Oi.tti"t' Telangana State G Anvesh Kumar, S/o Lslrf {${;fi:!fr: giL'; RfrSrY'"1#Y3rill,'# CamP ColonY, BYPass Roa State ..,..PETITIONERS 2 AND 1 SouthernPower.Distribut:i"""?;i:3t#t,1"j1,-t'tlft Chairman and Managing Ltt Hyderabad - 63' T.S' 'htlC*"[#J: 2 3 4 5 TheDivisionalEngineer(ENQUIRIES)andEnquiryofficer,TSSPDCL, Hyderabad. Telangana State' The Divisional Engineer, Electrical' Operations/TSSPDCL' Siddipet' Siddipet District, Telangana State' The Superintendent Engineer' Operation Circle' Medak Circle' TSSPDCL' S;;grrAdY' sangareddY District The Superintendent Engineer' TSSPDCL' Operation Circle' Siddipet' Siddipet District' T s Petition Under Article 226 of the C circumstances stated in the affidavit file pleased to issue a Writ of Certiorari or Orders, Direction or Directions calling for impugned order of No.DEE/OP/Sdpt/JAO/Adm/C2lD No 1 594 ""'RESP.NDENT' onstitution of lndia praying that in the d therewith' the High Court maY be any other appropriate Writ' Order or all the connected records including the resPondent in Memo 3rd dated 01-03-2012 along with the 7 Enquiry report d;rtri(i ' tt-07-2010 removing Mr.G.vittal from senrrce and quash the same as illegal, intr)rcper, unjust, arbitrary, contrary to law ,nd in violation of settled principles, nelr-ral justice and set aside the same, cons,:que:n y direct the respondents to reler;r;: family pension, death cum gratuity benr,:fits, all other service benefits rf h4r (l vittal (who has disappeared while in s,lrvice and nothing has been hearc li rim for more than seven years) t,r the pi:titioners and consequently direc- the respondents to consider the petitiorrer No.2 for employment on cornc€ s;sronate grounds. I.A.NO:2 OF 201 () Petition Urrd,:r Iir:ction is1 cpc praying that in the crrcurlstarrces stated rn the affidavit filed rr r; toport of the petition, the High Court may t.e pleased to direct the respond,-'ntr; No. 1,3 to 5 to release 50 per cent of t e pensionery benefits and other 'inancial benefits due to the husband of 1st petitioner pending disposal of the ab,o,re, vrit petition. Counsel for the Petitic,ners : SRI S.SRIDHAR Counsel for the Respondents : SRI N.SREEDHAR REDDY The Court made thr: f cllowing ORDER 1 wp_11895_2019 NBK, J THE HON , BLE SRI JUSTIC E NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA WRIT PETITI ON No.ll895 of 2019 ORDER: The l't petitioner is the wife, and 2nd petitioner is the son' of Mr' G' Vittal, who worked as Line Inspector in the respondent-TS Southem Power Distribution Company Limited. tt is their case Mr' G' Vittal joined the respondent-Department on 30.10.1993 and served for 16 years' when he went missing on 12.01.2010' Petitioners gave a "missing person" complaint in Kukatpally Police Station on l7'01'2010' whereupon a case in Crime No.66 of 2010 was registered and, after enquiry' the Police filed a Final Report dated 19.05'2010 before the IX Metropolitan Magistrate' at Kukatpally, CYberabad. As years passed since Mr' Vittal went missing' the petitioners' having lost hopes of finding him, made representations dated 21'09'2015' 27.05.2016 requesting the respondent Nos'3 and 4 to grant pensionary benefits and to provide employment to 2nd petitioner' Thereafter' the l't respondent-Chairman and Managing Director' issued a Memo dated 17.ll.2016 stating that employment under compassionate grounds would be considered only after completion of 7 years from the date of missing (i.e., 7 years from 12.01.2007); and that the 4th respondent-Superintending Engineer has been directed to take further necessary action for sanction of family pension and gratuity to the 1't petitioner' While so, to the surprise of the petitioners' a Memo dated 24.08.2018 was issued by the l't respondent stating that Mr' Vittal was removed from service w.e.f. 16.07.2009 and hence granting of family pension or compassionate appointment cannot be considered' Pursuant to \\ 2 1 wp_11895_2019 N8K, J receipt of the l4erno dated 24.08.201g, the petitioner: mirde enquiries, which revealec that ex parte proceedings were c,rnd.cte(. against Mr. vittal, and e riiper publication d,ated 27.01.201 l was als,r issued in regard to the same, z,nr[ trc 3d respondent-Divisional Engine.er rr)txoved Mr. Vittal from servic:, bi lt4emo dated 01.03.20 12,havingfound I\,1r. \ ittat guilty of the bharges lev:l c:d against him. Petiticr ers :ontend that after two years of missing of. ,u{r. Vittal, an ex parte enrru il''/ 'vas conducted against him, and further the charge sheet had retume<l to rtLt: sender, unserved due to lack of adrlres:;, an,r the enquiry concluded rh;rt he charges against Mr. vittal are pr()v,3c. petitioners contend thal as pr:' Section 108 of the Indian Evidence A.t, if a person has not been her,rrl :1 tbr seven years by those who would natrrrall;, have heard of him if he rve',: zLlive, the burden of proving that the perr;o. is alive shifts to the persorr rvhc is assefting that he is alive. petitioners therelbre contend that conductin ! ,?.(. parte proceedings against a persor, rvlro is presumably not alive, and holcing him guilty of the charges, and rerr,ovjrrg him from service base,J or such ex parte proceedings is imper,is;ibk,under law; and further cle:,.,,ing the pensionary benefits and cornpassionate employment tc 1[r(] petitioners is illegal and arbitrary. 2. Heard lt4. 13. Jayakar, leamed counsel for rhe petir ioners; and leamed Stan<lirrg (l,runsel for respondent-company. peruse,c thr record. 3. Havin6; c.;r s idered the respective submissions and 1.rs1u5sd th. record, it may be roted that it is not in dispute that Mr. Vittel, who was Line Inspector r tte respondent-Company, went missing in .Iarruary, 2010, and after aborrt t':rr months of search, the police have filecl a Final Report in May, 20lt'). lI ough leamed counsel for the resJrondenrs sought to contend that '\4 r. \'ittat had resorted to corrupt practice ol not depositing -/ 3 wp_11895_2019 NBK,.I the amount of Rs. 10,360/- collected from customers, into the Department account, it is to be noted that it is an admitted fact that charge sheet could not be served on Mr. Vittal, thereby he was bereft of the opportunity of defending himself by filing explanation/reply. Therefore, the very ex parte enquiry against a missing person is vitiated for lack of opportunity of defending the case, or filing supporting documents, or examining/cross examining witness, etc; thereby audi alteram partem is also violated in the instant case while holding the missing person guilty of the charges; and therefore this Court cannot countenance the argument of the respondents that the missing person (Mr. Vittal) had intentionally gone underground to evade punishment in the case against him. Further, the instant case is not about unauthorized absence or absconding and therefore the Rules governing removal of employees under G.O.Ms.No.260 dated 04.09.2003 is not applicable to the case at hand.

4. At this juncture, it is relevant to refer to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union of India vs. Dinanath Shantaram Karekarr, wherein it was held as under: "10. Where the disciplinary proceedings are intended to be initiated by issuing a charge-sheet, its actual service is essential as the persoi to whom the charge-sheet is issued is required to submit his reply and, thereafter, to particiPate in the disciplinary proceedings. So also, when the show-cause notice is issued, the employee is called upon to submit his reply to the action proposed to be taken against him. Since in both the situations, the employee is given an opportunity to submit his reply, the theory of "communication" cannot be invoked and "actual service" must be proved and established. lt has already been found that neither the charge-sheet nor the show-cause notice were ever served upon 1 (1998) 7 SCC s69 4 the orillinal respondent, Dinanath Shantaram Consc,qreltly, the entire proceedings were vitiated.,, wp 11895_2019 NBK, J lia reka r. --,.

5. In vie rr ol- the foregoing reasons, and it being a fact tlrat Mr. Vittal had gone nri:rsing for over seven years, and also the jud5rnent of the Hori'ble Supre l: Court in Dinanath Shantaram (supra), this Court cannot countenrrce the contention that Mr. Vittal is guilr.1, o,.the charges pursuant to thc :,-r .carte enquiry proceedings; or that the petiti.>ners are not entitled to arrv t,r:,,:fits on account of removal of Mr. \,ittal frorn service_

6. In that v e.i of the matter, the impugned Order datec Ol .03.2012 issued by tl e :l ' respondent, includin g the ex part,.: enqui v under the Enquiry Report cliLled 15.07.2010, ar.e hereby set aside. 7 . - Accor,Ji -u]l.r. the writ petition is allorved. The l.r -esp:rndent shall sanction and pr''' rle fhmily pension, gratuity and other berefils payable to the l't petiti.n:r'. i, accordance with law, within a pe,riod of ,:ight weeks from the dat,: r receipt ofa copy of this order. Further, conl;idering that the missing t'rr'plr'ee was in service, at the relevant time and presumably not alive as cn krcay, the l't respondent shall consider r.he repre sentation of the 2nd petitiorrer lor compassionate appointment, as per the Rules,, and pass appropriate o'(lers thereon, in accordance with law, w thin a period of eight weeks fr' rrrr rhe date of receipt of a copy of this .rder . No costs. Miscellaneous pr'-it ons pending, if any, sha[ stand closed. //TRUE COPYII SD/.P . PONIIA KRISHNA ASSISTANT RE )'t )N OFFICER TsrRAR To 1 2 4 A secr]t: The Chairmirn arrrl I1/sn2rr;nn pile^clgr, Southern power t)istributir. of Telanqanzr t t,i fffrce"at.5l gg,tyrniC#plrnO] H=voorroro rhe Divisionrr E,rr;rneer t ir,rouiniEsia,# Hffffi ljhicer r ssr Hyderabad. tela,rrrana S'tate E rectrica r, ope rations/rs S p DC r_ S id d i pr, ;i::,3i:?::]il : : : The Superintei oor)r Enoine.er, Operation Circle, Medak Circle, TS, Sang_areddy, S rrrga redJy Districi. r. d €lnr Ens ineer, TSSPDCL, Operation C ircte, S idd ip, ;lsr:"iTr{, - - 'T-", vr A.,,? ' i I ,n Company i3, TS ,DCL, rt, Siddipet SPDCL, et, Siddipet ----7 6 7 b SA BS \ 3ffi 33 3 3Rl R 3['PSfiAHS3fl?l?:y""Jte ropUC] Two CD CoPies 4- --ri':== :: -::-".- i i.. ,- " .,' :,1 \Ht ? 0 ,tttl 2n25 '9 '+ :. vx.' i \ ,i I I HIGH COURT DATED:29l$4l?,025 ORDER WP.No.11895 of 2019 ALLOWING T'i.IE W.P WITHOUT COS}TS. (} \,1 -^ [l\l I