The High Court · 2025

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI B. BALAJI Counsel for the Respondents: SRI A. CHANORA SHEKAR. SC FQR TGNPDCL The Court made the following: ORDER ?) HON,BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA WRIT PETITION No. 9801 OF 2016 ORDER: Petitioner while working as Line Man, Telangana State Northern Power Distribution Company Limited at Mahabubabad, an allegation was made that he hxed 3 Phase Meter bearing No. 59O294, without releasing Service number in HDFC Bank premises. When the 3'd respondent called for a detailed rcport, ADE (Opcration), MahabubaLrad submitted report on 29-12-2011, resulting in issuance of Show Cause Notice dated O4-OI-2O12. Not satisfied with the explanation, the 2,d respondent uide Proceedings dated 07 -O3-2O12 appointed the Divisional Engineer (Enquiries), as the Enquiry Officer for conducting enquiry againsl Sri E. Prabhakar, Ex-AE Operation, Mahabubabad Town, Sri M. Yakaiah, Line Inspector, Mahabubabad Town. After conducting enquiry, he submitted report on 2O-|O-2O12. Thereupon, the 2nd respondent issued Show Cause Notice dated 19-11-2012 calling for explanation as to why minor punishment as per Regulation 5 of Discipline and Appeal Regulations, should not be imposed, without proposing any such punishment. Petitioner submitted detailed explanation 2 dated 13- 12 .2O 1 2 requesting to drop the punisrhme nt, as he simply otreved thc instructions of A.E. and if any irregulari[, is committed, A.E. rs responsible for the same. The i)IId respondent issued impr.rgned hnal order uide Memo datr.cl 22 O5-2O13, imposing thc punishmcnt of stoppage of one annual grade increment rvilh cumulative effect, without considering the petitioner's explanation dated I3-12-2012 in prol>r:r perspective. Against thr: same, petitioner submitted A.ppeal dated 2'2-08 20 L 3 to the 1"r respondcnt, who rejecterl the same on O4-O4-2O14 ,.r'ith one line order stating that he hrrs not put forth any fresh poinr s in hts appeal u,orth con sideratir,rL. Hence, Writ Petition.

2. Lczrnred counsel for petitioner submits that petitioner has r-ro jurisdiction to release 3 phase rreter and it is the dury of tlrr: .{E, r,r,ho himself admitted beforc the Enquiry Officer that no estimate was prepared, no demand notice was issucd to the Consumer for reieasing the service z. rLcl no bill was issued to the Consumer. Therefore, petitroner cannot be made a scapegoat for the lapses committed by the Sub fingineer and the Assistanr Engineer. It is submilted tha punishment 3 imposed on petitioner is shockingly disproportionate to the alleged misconduct.

3. Learned Standing Counsel for respondents, based on the counter hled by the 2"d responden!., submits that punishment imposed against petitioner is just and proportionate to his indutgence in anti-departmental activity while he was working as Linemen with a mala fide intention to cause loss to the company. He relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in tlnion of India u. P, Gunrrsekarant and submits that in this case, enquiry was conducted according to the procedure prescribed in that behalf, hence, no interference need be warranted in the order impugned.

4. The charge atleged against petitioner is that he hxed the meter initially single phase to SC No. 18303 to consumer Smt. Raja Sulochana, later three phase meter was hxed with mala fide intention without collecting proper SLC and security deposit charges, though the actual connected load in HDFC Bank is more than 15 Kw, thus he breached the departmental rules and caused hnancial loss to the department. Further, it is alleged that petitioner failed to take steps to release and bill the I 1zo rs; z scc oto I 4 service to the consumer till 25.O1.2O12 and hnal reading 15926 though he lrxed the meter in the above location during 06/ 1 1 , thus hc acted dishonestly in regard to the board business and made hnancial loss to the department. The Enqr-riry Oflrcer found both lhe charges held proved against petitioner and consequentlv, thc 'impugned order was passed imposing punishment ()f stoppage of one increment u i1.h cumulative effect. Petitioncr submits that he being the lin<rrnan, executed the instructrons given by his superiors only and fitted three phase metcr in IIDFC bank and he did not colk.ct any amount lrom the c()r'lsllrner, as a11eged. In this regard, t is to be seen that during oral enquiry, the husband of cons-rmer told that they did not give anv money to anybody to get l.his meter. In view of the sante view and also in view of the gra,,ity anci naLure of offence. tlrough it is brought to the notice of this Court the judgment in P. Gunaseka.ran's case (supra) to submit that High Court shall not re-appreciate the eviderce before the Enquiry Ofhcer, it is felt that ends of justice w,>r-rld bc met if punishment is rnodified to some extent.

5. In view of the same, the Writ petition is disposed of modifying the punishment imposed against petitic,rLerr uide or<ler ,1, 5 impugned to the extent of stoppage of one increment without cumulative effect. No costs 6 Consequently, the miscellaneous Applications, if anv shall stand closed SD/.P: PADMANABH DEPUW RE A DDY STRAR //TR.UE COPY// SECTIO FFICER to',l. '"' an" chairman and M ffi trii1ffi,H'HHffifrffi#',}-FiH{i";*ffi# District t. 3ffi 33lS SEl R BfiK'l#b"':e[J3:33t"- TGNPD.L toFUC] 6. Two CD Copies BN B I HIGH COURT DATED:2610312025 q ETFo ,9 $\ $ l,corrl * F -a c.t' C) a o d a, * a tlJ 1 ORDER WP.No.9801 of 2016 DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS ?r,L{-