High Court · 2025

...RESPONDENTS Petition under Articre 226 of rhe constitution of rndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fired therewith, the High court may be pleased to issue any.appropriate writ, order or direction one particurarry one in the nature writ of mandamus decraring the action of the 3rd Respondent in framing the charges himserf, not conducting the Enquiry in a free and fair manner, in submitting the Enquiry Report dated 23tOBt2O18, by giving the findings on the charges on surmises and conjectures, by misreading the evidence, the action of the lstRespondent in imposing the punishment of compursory Retirement from Service, vide Memo No. CMD / CGM (HRD) / cM (DC) / AS (DC) / pO_D / F.No. 13-D1118-10, dated 2oto4t2o19, without independenfly considering the evidence and blindly accepting the findings recorded by the Enquiry officer and the action of the 2nd Respondent in imposing the another enhanced Major punishment in the Appeal dated 29ro4r2o1 9 and 19/08/2019 fired by the petitioner vide Memo daled2Ttolt2O20,witloutgivinganyNoticeandwithoutrecordinganyreasons' asarbitrary,illegalandviolativeofArticlesl4,l6and2lofthr:(.)onstitutionof lndia,violativeol.principlesofnaturaljusticeandconsequentlySetasidethe Enquiry Report date d 23tOBt2O1B of the 3rd Respondent' s':t aside the punishment of Compulsory Retirement imposed by the 1st Respondent' vide Memo dated 2oto4l2o1g and the lvlodified Punishment imposerl by the 2nd Respondent, videl Me:mo dated 27to1t2020, exonerate the Petitillner from the charges and direct the 1St Respondent to continue the Petil,ioner aS the Additional Assistant Engineer, with all consequential benefits, including Promotion as Assistant Divisional Engineer (ADE) IA NO: 1 OF 2021 Petition under liection 151 cPC praying that in the circumstarnces stated in the affidavit filed in :;upport of the petition, the High Court may ce pleased to suspend the Prlnishment of Compulsory Retirement imposed by the 't't Respondent, vider Merro dated 2oto4t2o19 and the Modified Punisl-rment imposed by the 2nd Responcent, vide Memo dated 27tO112020, while directing the 1't Respondent to ,:ontinue the Petitioner as the Additional Assistant Engineer' pending the above writ Petition Counsel for the Petitioner: SRl. P.V. RAMANA SENIOR COUNSEL REP SRI MADDELA RAVINDER Counsel for the Respondents: SRI MIR AQUEEL ALI' SC The Court made the following: ORDER , I I THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE PULLA KARTHIK ORDER: WRIT PETITION No.39 of2021 Seeking to set aside the Enquiry Report dated 23.Og.2018 oi respondent No.3, Memo dated 2O.O4.2019 of respondent No.1 imposing the punishment of compursory retirement and the modified punishment imposed by respondent No.2 vide Memo daLed 27.O1.2O20, the presenL Wri[ petition is hled. 2) Brief facts of the case are that while the petitioner was working as Additional Assistant Engineer, a charge sheet vide Memo No.DEE(Enq.II) NpDCL/Wgl./F.No.2283, D.No. 10/ 18, dated 07.O2.2018, framing four charges and calling for his explanation, was issued by respondent. No.3, who is an incompetent authority to do so. However, the petitioner has submitted a detailed explanation on 27.06.201g denying all the charges and requesting to absolve him from the charges. Respondent No.3 having not satisfied with the said explanation has initiated an oral enquiry vide proceedings dated 26.0T.2OIg, conducted enqurry and also submitted his enquiry repori vide letrer No.DEtr (trnq.II) NPDCL/WgI./F.No. 2283, D.No.76118, dared 23.O8.2}itr., holding that lhe four charges levelled against the petitioner are proved. Basing on the said Enquiry Report, respondent No. I has issued a show cause notice dated 06.09.201g, duly enclosing a copy of 2 PK, J \up -i9 2O2I enquiry rirport proposing to impose the majcr pu;ris,hmcnt in terms ol Requlation 5 of APSEB Discipline & Appeal Rcgutations (in short'RegulaLtc,ns'), however without specifying zts to wlLich major punishmt rr rv rs sought to be imposed, and ihe s.rmt. i:; c, Inlr,rry to Regulatiolr l0 of the Regulations. To the said shou. car rse no[ice date(l 06.Crgr.2() t8, petitioner has submitted a detailed e>:planation on 26.1 1.t201tj along with lists to prove his innoccnce ancl to subslantiate lLis contentions that the findings oI the trnquiry Officer zrre not correct. However, without considering th,: sarne in proper perspective, respondent No.l has imposed lhc punishment o[ compulsory retirement from service vide proceedirgs clated

20.O4.2O19. Ailgrieved by the said order, the petitioner has filed an appeal before r:spondent No.2, who passed the impugnt:d morliliecl order dateci 27 Ol.2O2O. Questioning the same, the pctitroner has filed the pr,lsent Writ Petition. 3) Hear,l Sr P.V, Ramana, learned senior counsel, representing Sri Maddeta Rervinder, learned counsel for the petitior.rt:r. arrd Sri Mir Aqueel Ali, t:arned Standing Counsel, for the responrie nts. 4) Learned srcnior counsel has contended that responccnt No.2 while decid ng the appeal filed by the petitioner insteacl ol reducing the punishmen t imposed on the petitioner has enhar.rcecl the punishmen, in tire form of passing modified order r.r.it}-rotrr, issuing , f -, 3- PK, J wp 39 2O2l any notice in the appear. Therefore, the modified orcrer dated 27.O1.2O2O is contrary to ApSEB Regulations, more particularly Regulation 15 thereof, and also violative of principles of natural justice. Learned senior counsel has lurther submitled that the findings recorded by the trnquiry Officer are contrary to the material available on record and are based on surmises and conjectures. Therefore, respondent No.2 ought to have imposed any minor penalty by taking into consideration 1g years of service of the petitioner as Additional Assistant Engineer in the respondent CorporaLion. Learned senior counsel has slrenuously coniended that the remedy should not be worse than the problem and respondent No.2 has erred in imposing the enhancecl punishment and if respondent No.2 was not inclined to rcduce the punishment imposed on the petitioner, he ought to have simply dismissed the appeal or else permitted the petitioner to withdraw the appeal. As such, respondent No.2 is not justihed in imposing thc enhanced punishment without issuing any notice. Hence, it is prayed to allow the Writ Petition. Reliance has been placed on: 7l Managing Director, ECIL, Hgd.erabad v. B.Kartnakart; and 2) Oryx Fisheries private Ltmited, u. union of Indiaz. '{tgg:l + scc zzz ' (2O r0) t3 scc 427 -4 PK, J rvt, 39 2021 s:-i 5) Per co-rtra the learned Standing Counsel has conten<led that based on trvo re ports submitted by the Superintending, E)ngineer (OP), Nizamrrbac , against the petitioner regarding accept ancc of bribe by the pet I-ioner for executing works unauthorize,:lly and unauthorizet,l sh il ting of DTR etc, disciplinary action i nitiated "r'as against thc petilioner by appointing Deputy Engineer as an Enquiry Olficer vide proceedings dated 30.C)1.2018 under Regulatior-r L0(2)(a) of the Regulations to conduct departmerltal enquiry into the 61rave lapses notices against the petitionel , and a charge menx) c zrtcd 07 .O2.2O18 was issued to the pt titioner framing four chzrrges, lor which the petitioner has sub]Tril.ted his explanation A s the said explanation was not convinc lng, an enquiry wer s c rr-rducted by the Enquiry Officer stri:tly in accordance ,.r' ith l?egulations and he submitted his report holding that all the lblrr charges were proved. Therefore, basing on the Enquiry l?eport ,1ated 23.08.2018, respondent No. I being the Disciplinary Autlrority has imposed the punishment of compulsory retirement as the said authority deemed it proportionate for the proven charges. However, on appeal, though the Appellate Authority l.ri.s n,;: :rccepted the contention of the petit:.orrer, but duly cc.rnside ring the hardship of the petitioner, responCenL No.2 has modificC th,: punishment imposed on the petitioner by respondent I'Lt.I zrnd passed the modihed order daled 2'7 .(,1.2O2O -5 PK, J wp 39_2021 ordering reinstatement of the petitioner with certain rnodifications. Accordingly, the petitioner was reinstated into service on 27 .OL.2O2O and therefore retired from service on 3L.Oi,.2022. Hence, there are . no merits in the writ petition and the same may be dismissed. Reliance has been placed on the unreported judgment of the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in Writ Appeal No.1012 of2O15, dated 15.07.2016. 6) This Court has taken note of the submissions made by respective counsel and perused the material on record. 7l As can be seen from the record, while the pc titioner was working as Additional Executive Engineer, basing on two reports submitted by the Superintending Engineer, Nizamabad, respondent No.t has appointed respondent No.3 as an Enquiry Ofhcer to enquire into the lapses committed by the petitioner. Thereafter, respondent No.3 has issued the charge sheet dated

07.O2.2O1a against the petitioner [evelling the following four charges: l) It is alleged that, Sri S.Limbadri, Ex AAE/Op/Bheemgal (R) section of Armoor Division in Nizamabad circle had demanded a sum of Rs.40,000/ as bribe and accepted Rs.2O,O00/ from rhe prospective consumer named Sri Lambani Sarman a resiclent of Vachya Thanda of Mendora village, in the last week of March, 2Ol7 for releasing their 5 Nos. agricultural service connections duly providing the transformer and connected lines, which is against the l -6- PK, J w1 _39,2021 departmental rules. And after accepting the said amount, thr: A'ldl. Asst. Engine:" had issued t0 Nos. poles to the above consu|ner from 33/ll KV SS Gongoppula on 06.11.2017 without obtairring the u,orf: orct:r against the estimate sanctioned on I1.08.201?' Thlrs. hrs ac.ion tarnished the image of the department in tL(: (yes ol the c( nsLrr rPrs. 2) t is:l.egecl that, Sri S.Limbadri, EX-AAE/ Op/ Bheemga) (R) section rad issued 1 No. 25 KVA old DTR during July, 2017 anC 2 Nos. polcs on 06.11.2017 to a prospective consumer narned Sri Lambani Rarnesh, resident of Vachya Tahnda of Mendora t'il)age without obtaining the work order against the estjmate sanctiolled on I LOl.2O I ?, ',vhich is against the departmental rules. 'l'hr: traid Addt. Ar;st. Frrgincer had charged the said DTR on 15.11.2017 by erecting the I KV and LT HG fuse sets purchased by the consu.ner. and then extended the suppty to the bore wells of the consu'ner with the help of service wire, without erecting the required LT linr: 'l'hus, he ne€Lrcted his legitimate duties 3) r rs . lLeged that, Sri S.Limbadri, Ex-AAE/Op/ Bheemgal (R) section ha(t drawn the 63 KVA DTR on 16.01.2017 against the sanctiorred eitirrate to give the overload relief to 1O0 KVA DTR on SS-VIII ar I'allikonda but the work was not taken-up even aftr:r a Iapse ol more than I0 months, knowingly that the existing l0O Ii]/A DTR go1 overloaded and utilized it somewhere else unauthorizerj ly. Further the said Addl. Asst. Engineer had allowed the farmer,r of Pallikoncia (\,) u,ho were availing the supply to their borervells flom the saicl overrc,arled 100 KVA DTR at Pallikonda to shitt the 6:) lr1/A DTR pertilinirg to PWS, Devakkapeta (V) to the location of lO0 lrVA DTR, on 16. .l .2017, unauthorizedly. Thus, he netllected his legitimate duties, suffered the larmers a Iot, rnis-utilLzed the departmental materials and tarnished the irrLagt: of the dep.rrtment in the eyes o[ the consumers. I -7 PK. J wp 39 2O2L 4) It is alleged that, Sri S.Limbadri, EX-AAE/Op/Bheemgal (R) section had not discharged his legitimate duties in respect of certain works listed below. The Divisional Engineer/ Operation/ Armoor has issued certain memos calling for the explanation of the said Addl. Asst. Engineer against those works" .But, the Addl. Asst. Engineer had not submitted his explanation to the memos and shown gross negligence in doing so, despite receiving the rcminders even after lapse of a lew months over & above the stipulated period, which shows his carelessness attitude in obeying the instructions of higher authorities, which is against the departmental rules." 8) To the above charges, petitioner has submitted his explanation on 27.06.2018. However, as the explanation submitted by the petitioner was not convincing, responden.t No.3 has proceeded with the enquiry in accordance with the Regulations and submitted his Enquiry Report dated 23.0g.2018 to respondent No. 1. Basing on the said Enquiry Report, after issuing notice to lhe petitioner and considering his representation, respondent No. i has imposed the punishment of Compulsory Retirement upon thc petitioner, vide order dated 2O.O4.2O19.. On appeal made by the petitioner, respondent No.2 vide order dated 27.O1.2O2O has modified the punishment as under: (i) Reversion as Sub-Engineer for a period of Two (2) years duly hxing his pay at the maximum of time scale of Sub Engineer cadre. (ir) During the period of punishment he is not eligibte to earn any rncrements 8- PK, J \.p_39 2O2r The period from the date of his relief or comPuisory (iii) retirem€nt to rlate of his joining as Sub-Engineer shall be treated as 'Dies-Ncn'. 9) In pursurLnce to the said modified order, datecl 2),7.t)1.2O2O, the petitiorrer \'.rs reinstated into service on the same daLy i.r:. on

30.01.2020 and rn 31 .O1.2022 he retired from service or1 ilttaining the age of supL'ra nnuation. 10) The rnain qround urged by the petitioner is that res,pondent No.3, who rvas appointed as Enquiry Ofhcer has issued th:r Charge sheet dated 07 .O2.2Ola without any competency. 1l) In this co 1texl, it is pertinent to state that while dt:a,ing with similar issue uiz., Whether the enquiry ofhcer could l-ravr,: framed the charges ir-rsLead of the disciplinary authority or the same amounted tl a scrious procedural illegaliry tainting the clisr:iplinary proceedings?, t re Division Bench of this Court in \\rrir Appeal No.l012 of 201ii, dated 15.O7.2O16, has held as under: "... it nra!'be noticed that the procedure to be follor,".ed in disci'rlinary proceedings trl the appellant organiz.ation is governed bl the lt.P S.E.B. Employees Discipline and Appeal Regulations. Regulation 10 cleals rvith the proce:lure lor imposing penalties and Clause 2(a) thereof s:at(:.s that 1n everJ ( ase \r'here it is proposed to impose on a meul ber of r .;ervice an1, of thr: penalties specihed in items (iv), (vi), (vii) in Regulati()n 5, the authoritl' com D,rtent to impose the penalty shall appornt an E:rquiry Officer, r,r'ho shall be superior in rank to the person on whorr it is proposed to impose the penalty, or shall itself hold an enquirv ertl.er -suo motu or oi a dir ection from a higher authority- In even such r:are, the I 9 PK, J wp 39 2021 grounds on which it is proposed to take action shall be reduced to the form of dehnite charge or charges, which shall be communicated to the person charged, together with a statement of the allegations on which each charge is based on any other circumstance which is proposed to be takcn into consideration while passing orders,in the case. Dismissal from service is the punishment speci[ied under Regulation 5 (viii). The aforcsaid provision does not spell out in clear terms as to who should frame the charge(s). The language therein appears to give discretion to the disciplinary authority to either frame the charge(s) or delegate the function to the enquiry officer, in the event such enquiry is not being held by the disciplinary authority itself.......... Signihcantly, the learned Judge, who presided over the Division Bench which decided this case, also presided over the Larger bench of five Judges in K.Swarna Kumar v. Covernment oI Andhra Pradesh [2006 12) ALD 585 (LB)]. Therein, it was held, upon construction of Rule 20(3) of the Andhra Pradesh Civil Services (Classihcation, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1991, that the disciplinary authority may either draw up the articles of charge or cause them to be drawn up and that framing of charges by the enquiry ofhcer would not vitiate the disciptinary proceedings. The Larger Bench also upheld the applicability of the prejudice doctrine in the context of disciplinary proceedings held in violation of the principles of natural justice or the rules. " l2l From the above, it is clear that framing of charges by the Enquiry Olficer would not vitiate the entire disciplinary proceedings. In view of the said proposition of law, this Court does not find force in the contention of the petitioner that the Enquiry Officer had no competency to issue the charge memo. 13) That apart, the petitioner had accepted the modified punishment order dated 27.O1.2O2O passed by respondent No.2, t ( - l0 - PK, J .,,'/p-39 2O2l joined the service on 3O.O1.2O2O and thereafte r qucst,.oned the said order dattd 27.07.2020 and filed the present r.r.n t petition before this; Co rrt on 31.12.2020 i.e. after a lapse of I I months. This Courr. is tl rhe view that the petitioner having ar:c,:pted the order daterl '27 Ol.2O2O cannot turn around at a later point of time and questlon t he same alleging that the modified punishmen[ is too harsh. Further, the appellate authority had alreerdl, taken a lenient 1,j5ry 1ery21d5 the petitioner and therefore this Cor..rrt is not inclined to take lurther lenient view towards the pc.titior: t_,r 14) For the aloremen[ioned reasons, this Court does not hncl any merit in the writ petition and the same is liabte to be d smissed. Accordingll', tht: Writ Petition is dismissed. Misct:llaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stan,:l closed No costs To, //TRUE COPY// SD/-T, TIRUMALA DEVI I\DEPUTY REGISTRAR \ SECTION OFFICER =:

1.I \J 'l . One CC to SFll. MADDELA RAVINDER Advqcate {OPUCI - ^- ,. 5;; dd iilsti. r',rin-n-oG'eL nli, SrRt'tott'tc couNSEL lor.']uc] 3. Two CD Copies BM BS VACATION COURT HIGH COURT DATED:1410512025 ORDER WP.No.39 of 2021 4 r:- j fX,.l a (j ?; ?r ;25 z c) _1.. ../ DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS ift1 6;t