The High Court · 2025

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELIIITGAITA AT ITYDERABAD THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI APARESII KT'UAR SIITGH THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G.M.MOHII'DDIN AND WRIT APPEAL No.611 of 2022 DATE:1O.12.2O25 BEIWEEN: M.Narsimulu. nlITD .Appellant The Telangana State Power Distribution Co. Ltd., Rep. by its Chairman and Managing Director, Warangal and 2 others. ....Respondents JUDGMENT The present Writ Appeal is directed against tJ,e order dated

25.04.2022 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.229l9 of 2OO5 whereby the u,rit petition hled by tl:e appellant challenging the disciplinary action culminating in the penalty and postponement o[ one incremcnt without cumulative effect was dismissed. The appellant filed the under\ring Writ Petition No.22919 of 2OO5 challenging the flrnal order of the respondent No.2 in Memo No.CMD/CGM(HRD)/GM(S)/As.ltt/ PO.V/F.3197- C I O4-2, dated 26- LO-2OO4 . ../'.. ..2.. 2- Heard the appellant (M.Narsimulu) who appeared party-in- person and Sri A.chandra shaker, learned standing counsel for Telangana state Northern power Distribution co. Ltd., (TGNPDCL) for the respondents and perused the record.. Factual matrix in brief 3- The appellant while working as Divisional Engineer at Kamareddy in the year 2oo3 was directed to appoint 32 Junior Linemen (contract). The.appellant in compliance of the direction issued appointment and posting orders. It was alleged that the appellant diverted three of the Junior Linemen to the control room of the Division office, contrary to the instructions. A show-cause notice uide Memo No.GGM(HRD)/GM(S)/AS-III/PO-V/F.No.3 19 t- c/2oo4-1, dated 17.o7.2oo4 was issued to the appellant calling upon the appellanr to show-cause within fifteen (15) days as to why 'severe disciplinary action including postponement of an increment with cumulative effect should not be taken on him,. The appellant submitted his explanation dated 27.or.2oo4. The disciplinary authority, after considering t.l.e explanation of the appellant, awarded the punishment of 'postponement of an increment without cumulative effect' uide Memo No. cMD/cGM (HRD)/cM(S)/AS.rrrlpo.v/F.3197-C /O4-2, aateO 26.ro.2004. :3:: The appellant's statutory appeal dated O9.O9.2OO5 was rejected as time barred uid.e Memo No.CGM(HRD)/GM(S)/AS.III IPO-UU F.No.3L97-C|O4-3, dated 26.09.2005. Aggrieved by the Memo dated 26.LO.2OO4 imposing the punishment of postponement of increment without cumulative effect and the rejection of tl..e appeal by Memo dated 26.09.2005, the appellant frled the underlying writ petition No.22919 of 2005, which was dismissed by the learned Single Judge by order dated 25.04.2022. Aggneved by the sarne, the appetlant has preferred the present Writ Appeal. Contentions of appellant

4. The appeltant (party-in-person) raised the following contentions: i. The show-cause notice dated L7.O7.2OO4 proposed a major penalty - postponement of increment with cumuladve effect. Therefore, under Regulation 1O(2)(a) of APSEB discipline and appeal regulations (for short 'RegulationJ, a full-fledged departmental enquiry by an enquiry oflicer was mandatory. ii. The subsequent imposition of a minor penalty postponement of an increment without cumulative effect does _1qlr1] :1r: I l 2242i not cure the initial illegality of not holding an enquiry, when a major penalty was proposed. iii. The appellant by ptacing reliance on two judgments of tlris court in B.Mondaiah u. Andhrq. prordr:sh North.ern Power Distribution Compang Ltd.. olnd otherst and K.Sa,mba Stua Rao a. Southern Pourer Dtstribution Company ol e Limited, o;nd. oth.ersp contended that the show-cause notice proposed a major penalt5r, and the employer is obligated to hold the departmental enquiry, even if a minor penalty is ultimately imposed. iv. The disciplinary action against the appellant was vindictive, arising from his earlier W.P.No. t7B2S of 2OO4 which was filed concerning seniority. Contentions on behalf of respondents

5. The learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents supported the impugned order dated 25.04.2022 passed by the learned Single Judge and submitted as hereunder: I 2oot' 18) sr.R 780 22010(l) At.l) 77(r *<!@7 ..(.. i. The penalty of 'stoppage of an increment with cumulative effect' is explicitly categoriznd'as a minor penalty under the Regulations. ii. That since the proposed penalty was minor, the prgcedure under Regulation 10(1) i.e., show-cause notice and consideration of explanation was followed. No enquiry much less a full-fledged enquiry under Regulation (2)(a) was required in the present case, as ttre penalty of stoppage of an increment with cumulative effect was. classified as a minor penalty under the Regulations. iii.The judgments relied upon by the appellant are not relevant to the tracts and circumstances of the present case and are distinguishable, inasmuch as in those cases, the show-cause notice explicitly propose penalties classified as 'major'under the concerned Discipline and Appeal Regulations. iv. The appellate authority rightly rejected the appeal as time-barred, since it was filed nearly eleven ( 1 1) months after the issuance of the final order, which is well ::6:: beyond the stipulated three (O3) months period prescribed for filing an appeal under the Regulations. Aaalysis and reasoning

6. We have taken note of the respective contentions urged and the material available on record.

7. The core issue in the present appeal is the classification of the penalt5r, proposed in the show-cause notice dated L7.O7.2OO4. The contents of the show-cause notice dated L7.O7.2AO4 are reproduced hereunder: Memo No.CG N ( H RD | | G M ( S I t AS- I fi / PO- V, F. No. 3 I 9 I -c, 2O(M- I Dt. l7.OZ. 2(X)4 SUB:- Ref:- Estt. - Engineering Services - Sri M.Narcimhuloo, G.M. (Projects ), former DE/Operation/Kamareddy - Certain lapses - Show-Cause Notice - Issued. DE/O&UKMR, Memo No.Adm/E2/D.No.3t5S, Dt. 14.10.2003. Strict instructions were ,*r") bng time back, not to diveft any incumbents to some other office/place. In spite of the above instructions, it is seen that Sri M.Narsimhuloo, former Divisional Engineer/operation/Kamareddy has issued orders vide leftr under reference diverting the following incumbents from Section Offtcer/ Operation/Kamareddy to the control of Section OfficerfTech./Divisional Office/Kamareddy for utilization in Control Room.

1. 2. 3. Sri M.Raju, contract lLM. Sri D.Ramu, contract JLM. Sri M.Shankar, contract JLM. The above action of Sri M. Narsimhuloo, former Divisional Engineer/Operation/Kamareddy is a clear lapse on his part. For the above tapse, Sri M. N)isin,huloo, Former/Divisional Engineer/Operation/Kamareddy is directed to show-cause within (l5l days 7 ftom the date of receipt of this memo as to why severe disciplinary action including postponement oF an increment with cumulative effect should not be taken on him. The incumbent is alg informed that if the expldnation is not received within the due date, it will be con*rued that he has oo explanation to offer and further adion deemed fit will be taken against him.

8. A perusal of the Discipline and Appeal Regulations is necessary for the proper appreciation of the issue in controversy. Regulation No.S classifies the penalties. The respondents have placed on record the office order dated

27.O9.2OO2 which categorically states that "stoppage of an increment with cumulative effect is a minor penalty". This classifrcation is binding on the appellant and has not been challenged. The relevant portion of the Regulation No.S is extracted hereunder:

5. Penalties: The following penalties, may, for good and sufficient reasons or for any miscondud specified in regulation 6 and as hereinafter provided, be imposed upon the employees of the Board, namely: (i) xxx (ii) xxx (iii) xxx (iv) xxx (v) a) Recovery from pay of an employee of the whole or any part of the pecuniary loss caused to the Board by reason of the negligence, misconduct, or disobedience to lawful orders, of an employee in the discharye of his duties. t: ::8:: b) Reavery from pay to the extent necessary of the monetary value equivalent to the amount of reduction to a lower stage in time scale ordered where such order cannot be given effect. Explanation:- i. If one increment is orderd to be postponed without, cumulative effect, the amount to be ordered to be withheld is 7x12xRs.7oo/-where the rate of increment ,s Rs. 100/-. This will get multiplied depending on the number of increments ordered to be withheld as indicate below: 7) Increment lx12x1OO 2) Increment 2x12x100 3) Increment 3x12x1OO = Rs.12OO.OO = Rs.24OO.OO = Rs.36OO.OO u. uL If one increment is ordered to be postponed with cumulative effect, the amount to be ordered to be withheld is 7x3x12x Rs.100/- where the rate of increment is Rs. 100/-. This will get multiplied depending on the number of increments ordered to be withheld as indicate below: 7) Increment 1x3x12x100 = Rs.3600.00 2) Increment 2x3x12x100 = Rs.7200.00 3) Increment 3x3x12x100 = Rs.1O80O.OO In case the punishment of postponing to increment is ordered, can be implemented only paftially, the increments may be postponed to the extent possible and for the remaining portion of the punishment, recovery may be ordered as indicated in paragraphs (i) and (ii) above. (vi)xxx (vii) xxx (viii) xxx (ix)xxx ..O..

9. [t is also relevant to extract Regulation 10, which deals with produce for imposing penalty which reads as under: "70. Procedure for imposing penalties: 1) No order imposing on a member of a service a penalty specified in itgms (i), (ii) and (iii) (v) or (ix) ot . regulation 5 shall be passed except after. a) The member of the service is informed in writing by the authority competent to impose the penalty of the proposal to take action in regard to him and of the allegations on which the action is proposed to be taken, and is given an opportunity to make any representations he may wish to make to such authority; and...."

10. The procedure for imposing penalt5r covered under (v) of Regulation 5, which is a minor penalty is governed by Regulation 10(1) which only requires (a) informing the employee in writing or the allegation (b) giving opporrunity to make any representation (c) considering such representation before imposing of the penalty. The show-cause notice dated L7 -o7.2oo4 right from the inception proposed only a penalty classified as a 'minor penalty'under tl.e Regulations and the prescribed procedure has been complied with. 1 1. I.'urther, in view of N.O.O (CGM-HRD) Ms.No .tLT , dared 27 -o9.2oo2, which unequivocally classifies kithholding of increments'as a minor penaltSr, this court finds no legal basis to treat the 'postponement of increment with cumulative effect, q ::10:: as a major penalty. The appellant cannot seek to convert what is a minor penalty under the Regulations into a major one and contend that the procedure contemplated for imposition of a major penalty has to be followed. L2. The record in the present case confirms that the procedure for imposing a minor penalty was scrupulously followed. The appellant submitted his explanation dated

27.O7.2OO4 which was considered before the lesser penalty of postponement on an increment without cumulative effect was imposed.

13. The appellant's reliance on the judgments of B.Mondalch (supra 1) and K.So;mba Siua Rcro (supra 2) is completely misplaced and inapposite. tn both the said judgments, the show-cause notice proposed 'major penalties' under ttre applicable Regulations of stoppage of two increments witJ: cumulative effect'. The legal principle laid down therein that proposing a major penalty creates obligation to hold an enquiry, while the appropriate, is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case. The foundational facts of the present case are completely different c7 :: ll:: and distinct. [n this case, the proposed penalty was always a 'minor penalty'.

14. The learned Single Judge correctly identified this distinction and rightly held that Regulation 1O(2)(a) was not attracted. Thus, we find no error in this conclusion.

15. Regarding the allegation of mala fides and vindictiveness, the appellant has not provided any material beyond a mere coincidence between his seniority dispute and the show-cause notice.

16. The alteged disciplinary action was based on a specific, clearly documented lapse, namely his diversion of the staff contrary to the instructions. In the absence of a clear proof of malice, this Court cannot invalidate a prima facie bonafide administrative action on a mere suspicion.

17. The appeal frled by the appellant was far beyond the three (O3) month statutory period prescribed under the Regulations. The reasons cited in the delay, namely, the death of the appellant's son on L6.O8.2O04, while tragic, occurred before the linal order was passed and does not confer an adequate explanation to the eleven (11) month delay, in filing E:---j" 12 the appeal, which requires frling of only a written.submission. The appellate authority's decision to reject the appeal as time- barred was neither arbitrary nor perverse.

18. In the light of the above analysis and for the foregoing reasons, the penalty proposed and imposed on the appellant was minor penalty as per the governing Service Regulations. The mandatory procedure for imposing a minor penalt5r was fully complied with. The judgments cited by the appellant are distinguishable on facts and law and are not appticable to the appellant's case. We hold that the findings of the learned Single Judge are well reasoned and do not warrant any interference by this Court. The Writ Appeal is devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed.

19. Accordingly, the Writ Appeat is dismissed. There shatl be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, ,ffRUE COPY/ To,

1. One CC to SRI M'NARSIMULU 2. One CC to SRI A'CHANDRA SHAKER' SC FOR 3. Two CD CoPies BSR BS i:" SD/.N OFFICER [oPUCI HIGH COURT ATED i 1011212025 1 tirE S ji I C\ C) 1 I JAN 2026 -7 * ),{ JUDGMENT WA.No.61 1 of 2022 DISMISSING THE WRIT APPEAL, WITHOUT COSTS tr)' r ;. t- ,^\,\. tirttt -, l\ \L\ /jr\ \' , .L'l '