1. Ch Somaiah v. TelanganaState Northern Power Distribution Company Ltd

Counsel for the Petitioner(s):SRI. S RAVINDRANATH Counsel for the Respondents: ZAKIR ALI DANISH ( SC FOR TSNPDCL ) The Court made the following: ORDER HICN'I,LE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMI.PAIilI 'WRIT PETITION No. 321OO OF 2013 o R D E_-R: lrr rhis Writ Petition, Memo dated 10.07.1 C 13 and conseqr.] c rti r I Appellate AuthoritV Order dateci 03.1(.:2013 is under ch;L1lt rrge .

2. PjLiuoncr was appointed as a Louer t,ir,isron Cierk (LDC) on lll 05 1998 under B.P.Ms.No.36 d:ted 1;J-35-1997. SubseqLLer r.'lr , hc was promotcd as Upper Division C'lc rJ< (UDC) in Sept:nrhc r 2008 and posted at the trlcctricitr R()\/cr Lle C)ffice (trRO). Krrt h:rqrrdem. While serving in this capr.r r1rv. he was issued shc r,.' cause noticc dated 06-O3. 20,19 l,-u- tl-re Superir te nrlir rg Dnginecr proposing departmertt:11 aclro I against tiim b:.st rl r n certain lapse:s, urhich rvcre otrt incr in the pre limura -., -r:port submitted by the Accounts Offir.cr (R:venue) dated 30-0(l .,1008 and to award the punishmett oi st( ppage of three:rrrnlut llrirde increments rvith cumulative i:lle ct. I)e titioner submiLle( r-r:1 rh., though not convincing, takinq a Ler-ii -'rrl view, the S upc ri r-. t t:ldir-rg Engineer, u,ho had isstLe<1 sho.w cause notice. l.tss( ( llnerl order on 30 06-2009, imposrng prt rishment of stop;,agle ()1 t\\ro increments with cumulativc .:l'iec t. \r/,rilc the Appeal u zrs pending, the Chief General Mana 3c " ( Iuman 2 Resources & Development) [CGM(HRD)], set aside both the show cause notice dated O6 O3-20O9 and the hnal order dated 30-06-2009 through proccedings dated 19-01-2O10. However, thc CGM(HRD) ordered a de nouoenquiry without assigning any valid reason. According to petitioner, service conditions of the employees in the cstablishment are governed by the Discipline and Appeal Regulations, specihcally Regulation 15, which clelineates the powers of the Appellate Authority As per Regulation l5(1)(4, the Appellate Authority has power to consider whether punishment imposcd is sustainable based on established facts and whether the facts constitule sufficient grounds for action. The Appellate Authority can also decide on the adequacy or inadequacy of the imposed punishment under Clause 15(c). Regulation 15(1)(ii) stipulates that in cases where enhanced punishment is being considercd under Clause (iv)' (vi) to (viii) of Reguiation 5, an enquiry must be conducted under Regulation 1O. In the present case, the CGM (HRD), while ordering a d.e nouoenquiry, did not specify whether the intent was to enhance the punishment under Regulation 5' Therefore' the Appellate Authorlty exceeded its jurisdiction by appointing the Senior Accounts Ofhcer (P & GT) NPDCL as the Enquiry -----r J Officer utrcrcr' I.legulation 15, rendering the pro:cecings illegal and r.oicl. :ri rt)sequently, Lhe Charrman and l\42 r aging Director ({lN4 D) appointed the Cieneral Manag,rr Audit), APNPDCL 'Irrrr.lllgal, as the Enquiry Officcr to condlrcl ( rquiry under Regr 1r-tirin 10(2)(a) of the APSEB Emplorccs tri:.cipline and Appc::rl ?,-gulations through letter claterl 0l {):-2010. Pctilioncr, Irrrr irrg served as LDC in the Toll.n trllO, tiharmam from ,Jr lr ))O1 to September 2OOg, \r.as itl o.ated Manchul<rncla {llab) Section during lhe period in cLLtirsti()rL. His primary r:s rr:,r L.,ibility as LDC was to maintain lcclget s st Ll,plied by Privatc t!(.cl -tnting Agencies anc.l to note dou.rt tlre payable amot-lnts fr r' :ot-rsumers, who r.rrould then milke p.r\ ntcn[s accord ing r. fi n cc the ledgers werc printed, ar Lv cluc sr ion of manipulatio r c r alteration of records does not arir;c. I is ;tatccl, for adrnin sl rirt i1 e reasons, the Assistant Account:; Oliicr:r ( IRO) issued thr r\lr:rt,r dated 0l-08 2008 directi.rg pctitto.:r tr r..d over all re,--r:) -(l( . elate d to Manchukonda Section t,r Ill.,( ) (l hrrat), Khammanr ,rt rr I to obtain records pertaining to sla I st ruices from Kon-jcrl,r i; r d Chintakani Secttons. petitioner con plie I s.ith the memo : nr1 -randed over all relevant recorcls bc irre t,erng I I I I . 4 i: promoted to UDC in September 2008 and subsequently transferred to trRO Kothagudem. While serving at ERO Kothagudem, petitioner was charge sheetcd on O7-O8-201O; charges primarily revolved around the alleged unauthorized transfer of amounts from one account to another. Petitioner submitted an effective explanation denying the allegations and contended that he had no authority to transfer amounts in ledgers unless specilically approved by the Assistant Accounts Officer. He asserts that all such transfers werc made with the necessary approvals, and copies were forwarded to the Private Accounting Agency for necessary corrections. Therefore, the allegations were baseless and devoid of merit. F urthe rmore, as per the memo dated O 1- 08 2008, all records had already been handed over prior to petitioner's promotion, making the subsequent enquiry against him arbitrary and unjustilicd- It is also stated, a formal enquiry u'as.conducted by the GM (Audit) in a perfunctory manner without affording adequate opportunity to petitioner to defend himself. The Enquiry Ofhcer ultimately submitted a report concluding that there was negligence on the part of petitioner. However, the report itself established that the allegcd book adjustments did t I ) not resu 1 1r iur\' llnancial loss to NPDCL. Basec' on this Ieport, lhe CMD is str:rl shou' cause notice dated 26 04 201 1 Jrr r.losing to dismir;s p3LiLloner from ser-vice. Petitioner submi.tcd e rcply on 25 05, l'(1 11, n'hich was not considered favortrlllr'. aLrrI a final order o1 ,fis nissal was issued on 10-07 20 13. P()titioner therefore . 1l llr Appeal on 16-08-2O 13 bcfore tl- r: I )ISCOM Board- 'Ihr 13rtrcl, through Memo dated 03 10-2011 'li;rnissed thc Appe rrl 'l'hl 1't re spondent is an industrial esLa rl shrnent as defin -'rl u rlcr Section 2(e) of the Industria i Esta.rl shment Standir-r11 ()r.l:r-s Act, 1946. The Ac1 mandates tlr.lt trtr irdustrial establishnren, must havc certified Standing Ordcrs golerning crnplol.c ' r;er;icr- conditions. Section 13(B) of the r\c' ll ovidcs cxemption; rI tl-rc rules and reguiations are notilie d lv the Approl;r li1c IL)\'cr'nment. However, under Secliotl 1ct(t ) of the Elcctrir:iLr' -S -. pplv Act, Rules and Regulations ht r-e t'r:t n f 'ame cl, includinr: )rs c iplir-re and Appeal Regulations, Llti t1 c1 lteLve r-rot been nctrlit::i as rcquired under Section 13(B). CorlstqLrcntly, thcse Rt gt L1 :r l,)ns cannot be applied to the employecs. i rt:luding the Pe t t iont t The Respondents werc bounrl tc lb [c,u' thc provisio rs cl rhc Inclustnal trmployment Stancling Orc ers Act,

1946. tlc rct, 1he entire disciplinary process, inchrr irg the 7 I 6 dismissal and appellate orders, is uoid ab initio and musl be set aside. The Petitioner relies on the Division Bench ruling in W.A. Nos. 57O of 2072, 7a2, 323, 324, 371, and 937 of 2Ol2 dated 08 08 2013.

3. The 2"d rcspondent hled counter-affidavit stating that as per Regulation (3), every employee is required to execute their duties with sincerity, honesty, and integrity. Failure to do so results in punishable provisions in proportion to the degree of the infraction, as mandated under Regulation (5) of the said Discipline and Appeal Regulations. It is stated, based on the preliminary report from the Accounts Officer (Revenue)/CO Khammam which highlighted irregularities at Town/trRO Khammam, implicating petitioner, the 2"a respondent issued Memo datcd O6.O3.2009, proposing penalty of sloppage of three annual gradc increments with cumulative effect, based on two key charges: l. The petitioner put up NAL J.E.s from 08/2OO7 to OS/2008 without follou,ing departmental procedures such as consumer representations and original/ duplicate PRs paid by consumers, effecting transfer of credits between services without appropriate ledger entries.

2. The petitioner inserted 45 servicc numbers into NAL J.tr.s from 09/2OO7 to OSl2OOa after approval of put notes, a---i-; o 1 trarLs[t n-ing credits amounting to Rs. 51.7'7 ) s( r! 1( )c s q'ithout sufficicnt documentation. ACIOSS -'J Lough petitioner's explanation is llot siLtis hctory, the 3''i lr,'sP,r r lent, taking a lenient view, reduc,:d tire p:nalty to stoppag( ri tu'o annual grade incremcnts, as fitlalizerl r Memo dated ! 0.0(j llOOg. Thc Appeal was rejected .ria Mcn ic dated

03.10.2:)1:,. [Jre procedural correctness of thc ciis:rplinary action r,a; r 1:held as per departmental regulation:;, re.r.forcing t he resl' ll.l, r ls' position. It is also stated, due to the gravitv of cha -g;es and thc inrol,r'r rr:nt of a Senior Accounts Officer (S,\t)), the Str/Op7 K rarrmam lacked the competen(tv L() initiatc disciplina l r,:tion against the SAO under Re;1uia iotr 7 of ttre Disciplint a rrl Appeal Regulations, as per Procecrlrn,3:; datcd

09.03.20 I o. :nrcl Proceedings dated 19.0 1-20 I r). Cor is :c1uct-ttlv, I ' r :r;pondent appointed the Gcncrirl Nlanagcr (Audit)/,\ r'\tl'r)CL/ Warangal as the trnquiry C)11ir:er to c:r rcluct a lresh rl -'p ,ri t l ,cntal cnquiry, superseding previ'lus plo;rcdings. It is 1o lr: i clr'<l lhat this Court in Writ Petilion N,r.2O838 of 2005, rLrl,rrl tr):rt a deparlmental enquiry is neccssrLn tr imposc stoppat,(r rl ,ncrements with cumulative effect, ,:las'ri[', i r11 it :Ls a major pr'n::liy. The trnquiry Officer, dull obst:r.i-tg the .I I 8 :il: :t. principles of natural justice, conducted the departmental enquiry and concluded that multiple charges against petitioner were substantiated. Based on the findings, the 1't respondent, issued show cause notice daLed 26.04 .20 1 1 . Upon reviewing the petitioner's response, final dismissal order was issued uia Memo dated 10.O7.2013. It is contended that petitioner's attempt to create self-serving interpretations of legal principles contradicts established departmental regulations and statutory provisions, hence, the Writ Petition is liable to be dismissed.

4. Learned counsel for petitioner Sri S. Ravindranath submits that none of the Enquiry Officers have stated that NPDCLs amount have bee n misappropriated, thereforc, the punishment of dismissal is illegal. It is submitted that the charges against petitioner revolved around the transfcr of amounts from one service connection to the other, as a rectification measures, on account of mistakes committed by the fie1d staff in assigning wrong distribution codc while releasing the supply and necessary documentary evidence was produced by petitioner to establish that rectification mcasures were taken based on the field reports. a 9 /.r'cording to learned counsel, sincc thr: /tp p:in ting Authorin, r.l'.o is also the disciplinary au thor ity i.e. Superin enclir; Engineer has already imposed ti-re prrr:ishment againsr hinr, 1;ased on the cnquiry report of tlrc Sir l,ccounts officer / O( ) 'lihammam, ordenng for de nouo enrlnrn bv the ChairmrLn iii \,4anaging Director is illegal. The trnr&rir Officer ought r-o lrr.n e verified the rclevant re cords anrl olrght tc have examine rl llr( , ronsllmers concerned. to ascertain thr: firc tt;.

5. I t i Zakir Ali Danish, learned St,rnd nq Counsel submits 1: a t the impugned order does I'r,rt erl ir e an1' interfcrcnr (' :3nce, the Writ Petition is 1iab1e to be cism ssed.

6. t t,.r'ing considered the respective subnrjssi ns and perusecl l Irt: rr-'cord, at the outset, it may be nole,1 that responcl:nt I t partment noticed several irregularities -c ating to maintentrr cc of Ledger entries and transfcr ol iiervice Conncc:tio rs ,r i1l'rout verification and authorizaLion, saic to have occurrt:cl rn \ \t )/ trRO/Tou.n/ Khammam durir-rg 2,)0zl 2OO7. The De p ar t n ,' -rl sulfered huge financial loss dlre tc, L hr .rlieged negligenl'c r.1 1.1 o[ its employees who workcd at th,3 rolevant time, ar-r:1 r lr : I)isciphnary Authority issued Ch:rrge M :lnos to them, irrt:JrL<1 r'g petitioner and punishment \,r.:ls i ngro;cd. On appcal, tlrr.: ,\ppellate Authority, Laking a vieri' t rrrt the ,l I l0 t punishment imposed was not commensurate with the severity of irregularities, ordered for an enquiry in each case individually. The trnquiry Officer held delinquent officials guilty of the charges and punishments of varying magnitude were imposed in each case. Though it rs contended by petitioner that similarly situated employees were given lesser punishments and it is only he who was discriminated by imposing the punishment crl dismissal from service, it is to be pima facie r-roLed that the very charges against petitioner are that he put ttp Non- Accountable Ledgers Journal Entries (NAL JEs) u'ithout consumer representalion and without permanent receipts (PRs), and effected transfer of credits from one service to another service without rccording the entries, thcreby financial loss to the tune of Rs.1,37,321/ was incurred by the Departmcnt. The charges also show that he posted 52 serv.i.ces wrthout Journal Entries as required under due procedure, and that he had manipulatively inserted 45 number of serwices in thc middle of NAL Jtrs from Sep 2OO7 to Aug 2OO8 after the approval of put up notes, and thereafter, transferred the credits to the tune of Rs.51,771 from one service to another without proofs.

7. It is not the case of petitioner that he was dismissed from ser-vice straightaway alleging some charges, without proper I a enquiry : n( l o l l)ortunity to represent his case On tL c c( n trary, urritten cxJ,l[]ni.tion, oral evidence and also th'l de piLr nrental records tr t rt] :onsidered b1' the trnquiry offir:er 'li e very irregular:t,ics -r late to non-cxistence of support ing cloc -r lents permancr t rt'cci1 t; and like cont;u r,,'' :rpplications, original rclatecl rl i,:c records which are cssential lctcttrLe 11 s for perlbrmir.rg/r:rrcuting the work ol transfer o[ conn:t:tions, maintenrLn,:,: r I Ledgers, e tcetera, which hale conle under scruLirrv. I tr r I e t-, thc explanation submitted bv p'-trtiorLer (at material pr l,' llo.64 of lhe rvri[ pctition) does not sh o'"'' t'rcther the changcs : l'l'ccted in service connections wcrt on the specific represen ta ,ior r., made by the consumers, and il thc ar:t cn was takcn ort h: , n ftrrm:rtion of somc Field Office:'s, 'i'hel her thc same hz s rh r :rpproval of the compctent authoritv I is the specific crrnL( lltion of respondent Department tl'rat 'l 5 l;ervicc connecti:rl s r":r'c insertcd in the middle of NAl, .lourr-rrLl Entry registers, .rl-t( I the existing entries have becn i:rppr )\rSt, rvhich gocs to s 'r:\ ' t hat records have bce n illegallr ntzrl-Li llrlated. Further-. r o tl i rg is placed on record to shou' he iruLtl Lc rity of pctitione r t,r -rnilaterally rectily any so-callecl allege< u'rong declarat or r r 1 Distributions/ Services furnisheC bv tl Le Field t 12 Officers in Monthly Returns without prior approval of the authority.

8. The Chairman & Managing Director, who is at the helm of the organization, cannot be said to be'not competent to order an enquiry into an irregularity commrtted in the Department, and therefore, his compctence in ordering enquiry by nominating lhe General Manager (Audit) as Enquiry Officer cannot be said to be it1egal. Furthermore, considering the gravi$ of irregularitics, the competent authoriq' has ordered enquiry into each case individually, u'hereafter each casc was individually considered by the trnquiry Officer and individual depositions were obtained, records were taken into consideration, and thc role and responsibility and the negligence committed by each of the dellnquent officials wcre g. considered u'hi1c imposing individual punishments in each case' At this juncture, it is relevant Lo refer to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State o;f Raiasthan a. Bhupendra Singhl, wherein it was held as follows: "

23. "fhe scope of examination and interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India (herernafter referred to as the 'Constrtution') in a case oI the present nature, is no longer res integra ln State of Andhra Pradesh v S Sree Rama Rao, AIR 1963 SC 1723' a 3- Judge Bench stated: '2024 INSC 592 (Civil Appeal Nos.8546-8549 of 2024) 1l . llie High Court is not constituted i]1 i lrrc c.'c 1 rrq undcr Article 226 of l]ne Constitut or] ir (lo rr-r ol appcal over the decision of the auth( l:iticrr 'ro rlr r 1 :t departmental enquir]' against a l'ublill lar \ .lr t it is concerned to determine whetht:r th : :n 1ir Lr r is held by an authority competent iD tha I rc r:,1 ,trtcl ticcording to the procedure presciil 'r:d ill thrl lr'l teLlf. and whether thc rules of natural j lslic j rl I I \'.rlared. Whcre thcrc is some evidence r hi' r th r rt t l.toritl entrusted ('ith the duty to hold the l-ras :rccepted and which evidence mar c n :t.u r lc. Lsor rrbh' support the conclusion that thc rle rrc Lr .:ttt oflicer is gullt!' of the charge, it is nol tl c Ir.r r, t ].r of ttrc tligh Court in apetltion for ;r \\rit ur (,( i ,r ticie 226 to revierl. thc evidence and to irrrir e at rLn i tclependent flnding on the evidence Thr: High (i Lr 1 rnal undoubtedly interfere u'herr tl e ,'lr |rir t,:].(--ntal authorities have held the proce:rlin1ls a!arni the dclinquent in a manner inconsistetrt \vi'h tl , r,,.\ ul tlalural justtcc or in violation ' sl rt.1 (,ll rulcs prescril)ing the mode of encltLirv n rv ll ltc authorities hzrve rlisahled themseh'r's ft-otn rtarli rg a fair clecision tly some considelitiorls o:..ir-ir -r'rorts to the evidence and the merits of tl't casl o I i allorvit'ig ttrernselves to be inllttcnced lr ir-( ( \,[1t considerations or ['here thc conclusir)n 1)ll 1l( ,"rrv face of it is so u'holly arbitrarl a'rd c tf,i :' ous thal no reasonable person could er r:r llavc a -rir -', lrt that conclusion, or on sirnilar grouri' ls E u t r ,, 1, par-lmenlal authoritics are. if th' enrIllr\ is o b: r,.ise properly held, thc sole judges of fact; anc if trrr'-r lrr: somc legal evidence on u'hich their I nclit gs clr le based, the adequac]' or reliabilitv ri tlraL e;raL( 1 cc is not a matter rvhich can bc permitt( cl ro bc i ,i III 1l I I I 14 (.'l canvassed before the High Court in a proceeding for a writ under Article 226 of the Constitulion." 29: Evidently, 1,'hite reappraisal of facts and evidence rs not impermissible by the High Court, the inhrmity in the underlying order has to be grcater than ordinary. It is not the respondent's case that due to omissions bl' the appellants ilt substantive and/or procedural compliances, prejudice has ensued to him. lat us examine the aspect independently too. The facts reveal that an earlier remova] order was quashed, and a copy of the Enquiry Report alongwith the RPSC's opinion was supplied to the respondent. The respondent, thereafter, received an opportunity to submit a written representation, rl'hich he 26 availed of. Further, hc q,as afforded an opportunity of hcaring as well ln this view. we are unablc to find any violation of the principles of natural justicc.

31. It is !\,ell-settled thal if the Disciplinary Authority accepts findings recordcd by the Enquiry Officer and proceeds to impose punishment basis the same, no elaborate reasons arc required, as explained by 27 three learned Judges of this Court vide Boloram Rordoloi v LakhimiGaolia Bank, (202 i) 3 SCC 806: '11. ... Further, it is well settled that if the disciplinary authority accepts the hndings recorded by the cnqui1,v officer and passes an order, no detailcd reasons are requirecl to be recordcd in the ordcr imposing punishment The punishment is imposed based on the findings recorded in thc enquiry report, as such, no further elaborate reasons are requirerl to be given by the disciplinary authority-

32. The Removal Order makes it clear that the Disciplinary Authority has considered the whole material before it and was satished to impose punishment on the resPondent " 10 Having considered the respective submissions and perused the record, and also the judgments relied on by the t5 respectiv,r r()1 r sel, this Court is of the vielr, tlritt .h,tr i is no procedurrl u r e lularity in ordering the enquin. or violl t on of principlcr; ol r Lr tural justice or discriminatory tt catlnen, :neLed out to tir:. lcl ti()ner s,hile imposing the impugt]:ri lrut-ri;lrmenL aftcr thc errcr ri + proceedings. In that vicw of Lhe nilt er, the u.rit petit o;r is i:r}:le lo be dismissed.

12. closed. To, Ar r ordingly, the writ petition is dism:sserl. N.r :osts. \{ sccllaneous petitions, pending if a n-v, sha. I stand t ( SiD/-K.AMMAJI PIJIY REGISTRAR dE i sr<:,ttoru oFFtcER //TRUE COPY// Telanga rrafitale Northern Power Distribution Company Lt,l, Rr rp by its 1 Chairmarr a.nd [,lanaging Director Vidyut Bhavan, Nakkaletgutta, Hanumal<onda \Varnagal - 506004

2. Chief General tt4anage(HRD), Vidyut Bhavan, Nakkalagutter, {itnumakonda, Waranga l-f ,0t) )r)4. Superintr:n,Jinrl Engineer(Operations), NPDCL, Khammarn One CC to SFll S RAVINDRANATH Advocate [OPUC] One CC to Sl?l ZAKIR ALI DAhllSH ( SC R TSNPDCI.. ) A,lrocate [OPUC] One Spa re Co p'y Two CD Cc,pie s SAB J 4 5 t) 7 i .l HIGH COIJFIT DATED:21 104U2025 '\ i o {+ ' tP.1 '1,. ) - \t \ i.sp7 1,- 11 ,:-\ i -i=: ORDER WP.No.32100 of 2013 DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS