High Court · 2025

...RESPONDENTS Petition under Articre 226 of the constitution of rndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fired therewith, the High court may be pleased to issue a writ or order or direction, especiafly one in the nature of writ of ma ndam us i) Memo declare No. CGM/P&RAC&EO/NpDCLA/UGL/D.No.124012006 dated 02 11.2006 issued by 4th respondent and consequential Memo No.CMD/CGM(HRD)/cM(S)/A. DC/F No.2 1 80_D/05_53, 1 6. 1 0.2009 issued by the .1st respondent and Memo No CMD/CGM(HRD)/J S /AS-DC/F No 2.t80_DtO5-78 dated 03 09.2010 I t a I29.09.r'010 issued by the 2nd respondent as illegal, arbitrary under set asid€. the same. ii) Consequently direct the respondents to reinstate the petitioner into service ouly granting all other consequential benefits. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI SAt RAM, REP. FOR SRt TARUN G.REDDY Counsel for the Respondents: SRI A.CHANDRA SHAKER, SC FOR NpDCL The Court made tl"e following: ORDER a 'j I 7 i THE HON ,BLE SRI ]II STICE NAM VARAPU RAJES HWAR RAO WRIT PETITION No.28O 50F2 011 ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed seeking the following relief: '"...to issue a writ or order or direction, especially one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus: i) declare the Memo No.CGHM/P&RAC&EO/NPDCL/ WGL/D.No.1240/2006, dated 02.11.2006 issued by 4'n respondent and consequential Memo No'CMD/CGM(llRD)/ GM(S)/AS.DC/F.No.2180-D/05-53, dated 16' 10'2009 respondent and Memo issued by No. CM D/CGM ( H RD)/t. S./A5- DCi F. No' 2 1 B0 - D/ 05 -7 B, dated 03.09.2010 / 29.09.2010 issued by the 2nd respondent as ittegal, arbitrary under set aside the same' the 7't ii) Consequently direct the respondents to reinstate the petitioner into service duty granting all other con7equential benefits. iii) and pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the CASC,

2. Heard Sri Sai Ram, learned counsel representing Sri Tarun G' Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Sri A' Chandra Shaker' learned Standing Counsel for NPDCL, appearing for the respondents' Perused the material on record ' I _l:l I 2 'I

3. The brief 'acts of the case ar-e that the petitionei' was appointed as Junior Account; Officer (JAO) in the 1't respondent company on 26.07.2000. wlrile working as JAo at Kamareddy, the Chief Generar Manager appointed an enquiry officer to conduct a preliminary enquiry against the petil ioner and other officers, including T. Sadarlal. DE, and L. Ramulu, uDC. 'rhe preliminary enquiry officer submitted his report on 30.08.2005. However, even before the submission cf this report, the same officer wirs initially appointed to conduct a regular enquiry by framing speciFic char-ges. subsequenily, vide memo dated 02.09.2005, respondent No.4 was appointed as the enquiry officei- in supersession of the earlier memo dated 11.07.2005. Based on the said memo, !-espondent No.4 framed 10 :harges against the petitioner, ail alleging negrigence and failure to follow departmental procedures while handling accounts work. Charges were al:;o framed against eight other employees.'A charge sheet was issued incc rpcrating letters dated 29.06.ZOOS, 21.06.2005, and 30.08.2005.

4. After conducting a thorough enquiry, the disr:iprinary authority found that the p3titioner, Sri K. Bhaskar, Ex-lAo/D.o./Kamareddv (now JAo, o/o AAC)/ERO/T/Nizamabad), committed rnisconduct under Regulations 4(xx'fi) and 4(xliv) or the conduct Regurations and attracted severe ciiscipiinary action as per the Discipline and Appeal (D&A) Regulations' The petitioner was directed to show cause within 15 days of e 7 J !-eceipt of the memo dated 11.02.2009 why dismissal from service should not be imposed. Subsequently , vide memo dated 16.10.2009, the petitioner was dismissed from service. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed an appeal before the appellate authority, which, vide rrremo dated 29.09.2010, modified the punishment dismissal to compulsory retirement. Hence, the present Writ Petition.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that during the entire enquiry process, no documents relied upon by the depaftment were served to the petitioner, despite his repeated requests. This issue was also raised specifically in the appeal. However, the appellate authority passed the modified order without considering t any of the contentions I raised in the aPpeal.

6. per contra, iearned Standing Counsel for NPDCL submits that the petitioner was served with all necessary documents during the enquiry and the same was disclosed in the counter affidavit. In view of the above, whlle disposing of the writ petition, liberty is

7. granted to the petitioner to file a review petition before the appellate authority. Upon such review being filed, the appellate authorlty shall consider the same and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law, as expeditiously as Possible. Y--*1\r\ - 8, With the above observations, the Writ petiticn is disposed of 4 There shall be nc, order as to costs. As a sequei, miscellaneous applications pendinE, if any, in lhis Writ Petition, shali sta nd ciosed. To, //TRUE COPY// SD/-A.V.S. PRASAD DEPUTY R2STRAR SEcTIoTfAFFIcER /

1. The chairman and l/anaging Director, Northern power Distribution company of A.P Limiled, Warangal. Diskibution Sompany of A p. Limrted, Waiangal.

2. The chairnran and tt{a_nqo ins Director, Discom Board, Northern power 3 J.nu Chie.f t:ngineer I Zone, Northern power Distribution Company of A p. Limited . Nizamabad \ Wara nga l.

4. The chief cenerar [\4anager (projects & RAC) / Enquiry officer, ApNpDCL / 5 One CC to S Rt TARUN G.REDDY, Advocate tOpUCl 6. One CC to SRt A CHANDRA SHAKER, SC FOR NPDCL tOpUCl 7 . Two CD Cop ies r BSR BS HIGH COUFTT DATED:26111812025 ORDER WP.No.280li5 of 2011 ' ir ri i,1 ,. -.:.. . ' ,-- (/r.. . 19sEPM :t:,:t.\ ',- ^a,l I DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION, WITHOUT C;OSTS