High Court · 2025

petition under Articre 226 0f the constitution of rndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fired therewith, the High court may be pleased to issue an order, direction or a writ more particurarry one of certiorari and quash the Finar orders in [\/emo No. G.No./periAS/perrpotDC-1/1244_ 05/2005-1s, dt.07 .07 .2007 imposing punishment of reduction in rank and appellate authorities orders dt.02.0g.200g and orders dt.05.0 8.2015 of the 1st respondent decraring that the same as iregar and impermissibre in raw as ordered earlier by the Hon'ble High court in w.p.No.g107 and 8108 of 2007, d1.04.08.2015 directing the Respondents to accord a[ consequentiar service benefits of restoration of rank and appropriate pay and pension to the petitioner. It c * # } * + + + r*' a {t lA NO: 1 OF 2024 Petition under section i 51 cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court may be prea'sed to direct the respondents to treat the petitioner as simrrarry situated to the Petitioners in w p.No 8'107 and 8108 0f 2007, dt 04 08 20.1 5 and pass orders pending disposal of the Writ petition. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI R.V.MALLIKARJUNA RAO Counsel for the Respondents: SRI PATIL SHANKAR RAO, REp. FOR SRI N.SREEDHAR REDDY, SC FOR TGSPDCL The Court made the following: ORDER ,* ,} f ) t * * s * 1 THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE PULLA KARTHIK ORDER: TIJRIT PETITI ON No.32094 of2024 This Writ Petition, under Article 226 ot the Constitution of India, is hled seeking the follorving rclief: "...to issue anorder, direction or a i\.rit more particularly one of Certiorari and quash the Final Orders in Memo No. G. No. / PerlAS/ Per / PO I DC I / | 244 - CS / 2OOS - 1 S, dt.OZ .OZ.2oo7 imposing punishment of reduction in rank and appellate authorities orders dt.02.O8.2OO8 and orders dt.O5.0g.ZOtS of the lst Respondent declaring that the same as illegat and impermissible in law as ordered earlier by the Hon,ble High Court in W.P.No.8107 and 8108 ot 2OOZ, dr.04.08.201S directing the Respondents to accord all conscquential service benefits of restoration of rank and alrpropriate pay and pension to the Petitioner and to pass..."

2. The brief facts of rhe case are that while the petitioner was working as an Upper Division Clerk in the respondent Corporation, he rvas issued with a Charge Memo in the year 2005, alleging that he was responsible for incorporating irregular and unauthorized credit j ournal entries into the computer records in respect of (fag) high value service transactions, amount Rs.33.32 lakhs. Thereafter, an enquiry was condlrcted against the petitioner and sixteen others, wherein, the5r u,erc cxonerated vide enquiry report dated 20.10.2006. However, Lhe disciplinary authority appointed a second enquiry officer on 22.O I .2OOT , l-o er:quire into the very same charges, and the second enquiry officer submitted his report dated 26.05.2OO7, holding the charge agains[ the petitioner as proved. Consequent\r, he rvas imposed with a punishment of s i 2 Ur. e. n'o. J 2 0o+ ofb'iZl .1 \ reducdon in rank from Upper Division Clerk to Loiver Division Clerk, vide merno clated oT .OZ.2oo1 . Howcvcr, the petitioner,s appeal an<l review petitioils tvcre also disrnissed cn O2.Og.2O0g, but on consideration of his mercy petition, thc punishment was modified to that of reduction in rank from Uppcr Division clerk to Lower Division clerk for a pg1i6d of threc ycars, vide orders dated 05.0S.201S. Aggrieved by the same, the prcscnt "rv vluncrrr rvrtt pctition has been filed. 3 Hearcl Sri R.V. Mallikarjuna Rao, lcarnrd for the petitioner and Sri patil Shankar Rao, representing Sri N. Sreedhar Reddy, learned resPondent Nos. 1 and 2. counsel appearing learned counsel, Standing Counsel for

4. Learned counse.l for the petitioner contencls that there is no provision in the Discipline and Appeal Rules, for a sccond enquiry, and the very appointment of a second enquiry ofilccr is itself illegal, arbitrary and violative of principles of natural justice, inasmuch as, no reasons or a disagreement note has been issued by the disciplinary authority. It is also submitted that the second enquiry report is rvholl-v perfunctory, as it is onry a reiteration of the charges and a conclusion that the petitioner,s cxplanation was not satisfactory, and no discussion on charges, records or evidence is record therein. It is further submittecl that son Lrrdt some of the cl'rarged ; -.-' I Ii-Itlt----!.k---:rF-- ) - .) PK, J W.P.No.32O94 of 2024 officers, similarly situated as the petitioner herein, have earlier approached this Court by frling W.p.Nos.8107 and 8lO8 of 2OOg, which were allowed by this Court vide common order dated 04.08.2015, setting aside the punishmenr orders dated 24.OS.2OO} and the rejection orders of the appeilate authority dated 19.11.2008. However, though all the seventeen oflicers, including the petitioner herein, are covered by the same charges and same impermissible second enquiry, the respondents chose to implement the orders of this Court only in respect of [hose individuals who have hled writ petiticrrs. As such, since the petitioner is also similariy situated with those officers as in w.p.Nos.8r07 and g106 of 2OO9, he made a representation to rcspondent No. 1 on 12.O9.2022, seeking to set aside the punishment orders. However, no action has been taken thereon. Therefore, learned counsel prays this Court to allow the present u.rit petition.

5. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf cf the respondents submits that serious allegations of misappropriation of the Corporation,s funds were leveled against seventeen individuals, incl-rding the petitioner herein. As such, an enquiry officer was appointed vide Memo dated O3.06.2OO5, who submitted his report on 3O.10.2006. However, after carefuily examining the said rcport, the disciplinary authority felt it 4 PK, J W.P. No. 3209,1 ol 2 O24 _, necessary for re-enquiry in the matter, and a second enquiry officgr was appointed vide Memo dated 22.01.2007, who submitted his report on 26.05.2007, holding the petitioner guilty of Lhe chargc leveied against him. As such, he was initially imposed u,ith the punishment of reduction to a lower post, i.e., from UDC to LDC vide Memo dated 02.08.2008, which was later modified to that of reversion from UDC to LDC for a period of three 1,ears vide Memo dated 29.05.20O9. Thus, all the orders issued in the case of the petitioner are in accordance with the Ruics and Regulations in vogue, and there is no illegality. It is furthcr submitted that the charges leveled against the petitioners in W.P.Nos.81O7 and 81O8 of 2009 arc clifferent with the charge leveled against the petitioner. Hence, the order of this Court in W.P.Nos.8107 and 8108 of 2OO9 is not applicable to thc case of the petitioner. Therefore, it is prayed to dismiss the present writ petition.

6. This Court has taken note of the rival contentions/ submissions made by the learned counsel for the respcctive parties

7. A perusal of the record discloses that an enquiry officer was appointed r.ide Lr.No.DS(Per)/AS(Per)/PO(DC) I 1.244-C5 /2OO5-2 dated O8.06.2005, to conduct an enquiry into the charges leveled against the petitioner and sixteen other individuals. Thereafter, a I I 5 w.P.N,.s2os4 of;hr4 common enquiry was conducted, and the enquiry officer submitted his report vide Lr.No.Enquiry Officer/ApCpDCL/D.No.300/06 dated 30. 10.2006. However, as rightly pointed out by the petitioner' even without recording any reasons and without issuing a disagreement note, the disciplinary authority proceeded with the appointment of a second officer vide Memo. No.DS(per)/ AS(Per)/pO(DC_t)/1244_CS/2OOS_B dared 22.Ot.2OtZ, who conducted an enquiry and held the charge leveled against the petitioner as proved vide Lr.No.Enquiry Officer/CGM(Rtd)/trRO_ HBG/D.No.31 dated 26.02.20O7. Consequently, the petitioner was imposed with the punishment of reversion of cadre from Upper Division Clerk to Lorver Division Clerk vide Memo.No.CGM(HRD)/ GM(Adm)/AS(per)/Fo(DC_r) / 1244-cs/o|-ss dared 02.08.2oo8. Thereafter' his mercy petition was considered and the punishment was modified to that of reduction to lower post, i.e., from UDC to LDC for a period of 3 years, vide Memo dated 29.06.2O09. subsequently, he preferred another appeal on 08.12.2014, which was rejected victe Memo.No.CGM(IJRD)/GM(Adm)/AS(DC_ I) / Po(DC-r) / 1 244 _Cs / 2OOS/Vol_r\; dated 05. 08. 20 1 S. 8' It is the specific case of the petitioncr that in thc case of similarly situated e:nployees, this Court, vide cornmon order dated i I l I 6 PK, J \ .P.No.32094 of2O24 F

04.08.2015 ln W.P.Nos.S1O7 and 81O8 of 2O09, set aside the punishment orders of the petitioners therein, holding as follows: 'From the contents of the above mentioned Memo it is clear f,hat the disciplinary authority relied upon Regulation 1O(2)(a) Ior appointing an enquiry ofrrcer to re-enquirc into the allegations against 17 officers. The said regulation reproduced above loes not authorize the disciplinary authority to appoint an enquiry orlicer to re-enquire. Further, the Chairman and Managing Dircctor has even failed to refer to the fact of previous enquiry, leavc alone the reasons for ordering re-cnquiry' As held by the Division Bench in C. Madhasudan (2 supra) the Regulations do not authorize the disciplinary authority to appoint second enquiry officer and that under Regulation 1O(a)(b) of the Regulations there is scope for issuing shorv cause notice if the disciplinary authority differs with the findings of the enquiry offlcer and pass an approPriate ordcr' Respondent No 1 has failed to follow this procedure and instituted the second enquirv, which in my opinion is wholly impermissible in law' For the above mentioned reasons, the orders disciplinary authority, as conhrmed in appcals, sustainable and they are accordingly quashed " g. For better appreciation of the case on hand, it is apposite to refer to Regulation 10 of the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana) State trlectricity Board Employees' Disciplinary and Appeal Regulations' which providcs for the procedure to impose penalties' Regulation 1O(2)(a) and (c) and 10(4)(b) are extracted hereunder: "10(2) (a). ln every case where it is proposed to impose on a memtrei of a servite any of the penalties specihed in terms (iv), (vi), (vii) and (vili) in regulation 5, the authority competent to i-po". ifr. penatty shali appoint an Enquiry officcr, who shall be sttperior in .^.tk to th" person on whom it is proposed to impose the penalty, or shall itself hold an enquiry either suo di.."tio.t from a higher authority ln every such -ot, o. o.t case the grounds on which it is proposed to take action shall be reduccd to the form of dehnite charge or charges, which shall be communicated to the pcrson charged, together rvith a " I ) 7 PK, J W.P.No.32O94 of 2O24 statement of the allegations on which each charge is based and of any other circumstances which it is proposed to take into consideration in passing orders in the case. He shall be required, within a reasonable time, to hle a written statement of his defense and to state whether he desires an oral enquiry or to be heard in person or both. The person charged may, for the purpose of preparing his defense be permitted to inspect and take extracts from such o{Iicial records as he may specify, provided that the enquiry officer may, for reasons to be recorded in writing refuse such permission, il in his opinion, such records are not relevant for the purpose or it is against public interest to allow access thereto. On receipt of the statement of defense within the specifred time or such further time as may have been given, an oral enquiry shall be held il such zrn enquiry is desired by the person charged or he is decided upon by enquiry officer or is directed by the competent authority. At that enquiry, oral evidence shall be heard as to such of the allegations as are not admitted and the persons charged shall be entitled to cross e.xamine the witness, to give evidence in person and to have such witnesses called as he may wish, provided that the enquiry officer may, for special and sufficient reason to be recorded in writing, refuse to file, call a witness. After the ora[ enquiry is completed, the person charged shall be entitled to hle, if he so desires, any further written statement of his defense. If no oral enquiry is held and the person charged desires to be heard in person, a pcrsonal hearing shall be given to him. The enquiry officer shall, on completion of the enquiry or the personal hearing of the person charged or both, forward rhe proceedings of the enquiry to the authority competent to impose the penalty unless he is himself such aI ofircer. The proceedings shall contain the charges framed against the person charged along with the grounds of charge, written statement filed in defense, if any, a sulhcient record of the evidence adduced during the oral enquiry, a memorandum of the point urged by the person charged during the personal hearing, if any, a statement of the hndings of the enquiry offlcer on the different charges and the grounds therefor. (c) After the authority competent to impose the penalty mentioned in clause (a) has arrived at a provisional conclusion in regard to the penalty to be imposed, the person charged shalt be supplied with a copy of the report of the enquiry ofhcer and be givcn a reasonable opportunity of making representatioD, within a reasonable time not ordinaril-v exceeding one month, on the penalty proposed. Any representation made in this behalf by the person charged shall be duly taken into consideration by the competent authority before final orders are passed. ft! 8 W.P.N1.32O94 oI2024 . ? PK, J Provided that such representation shall be based onlv on - the evidence adduced during the enquiry referred to in clause (a). (4)(b) The competent authority may authorize anv officer in Class I or Class-ll servicc superior in rank to the employee to initiate departmental proceedings and to hold enquiry alainst the. ernployee. On the findings of that officer, the clmfetent authority may award punishment or otherwise give a decision.,, i0. From a plain reading of the above, it is clear, as held by this Court in W.P.Nos.S107 and 8108 of 2OO9, that the Regulations do not empower the disciplinary authority to appoint a second enquiry ofhcer. Moreover, in the event the disciplinary authority disagrees with the finciings of the enquiry ofhcer, the oniy provision under the Regulations is to issue a show-cause notice, and pass appropriate orders thereon in accordance with law. However, such a procedure was not adopted by the respondents in the instant CASC.

11. In vierv of the above, this Court is of the considered opinion that the impugned punishment order, as well as the order passed by the appellate authority, is unsustainable under law. As such, the said orders are liable to be set aside.

12. Accordingly, the Writ petition is allowed setting aside in Memo.No.GM(per)/As(per)/ impugned orders PO(DC-I)/ 1244-CS /2OO1-|S dated 07.OZ.2OOZ and Memo.No. cGM(HRD) / cM(Adm) /AS(DC-I) /po(DC-I) / 1244 -Cs / 2oo5lVol_rv 9 PK, J W.P.No-32O94 of 2024 dated 05.O8.2015, issued by respondent Nos'1 and 2, respectively' and the respondent are directed to release all conseqr.rential benefits to the petitioner- Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any in this writ petition, shall stand closed. No costs //TRUE COPY// S -P. PONNA KRISHNA NT REGISTRA S TION OFFICER To, The Chairman and t\tlanaging Director, Telangana Distribution Company Limited., Mint Compound, Hyde rabad, T.S The Aooellate Authoritv and Board of Directors, The Telangana. S-te]e siirfti,jliFbtilr oisiiioufion companv Ltd., Mint compound, Hvderabad' T S One CC to SRI R.V,t\ttALLIKARJUNA RAO, Advocate [OPUC] One CC to SRI N SREEDHAR REDDY, SC FOR TGSPDCL [OPUC] te Southern Power 1 2 3 4 Two CD Copies BSR GJP * "\* .t a ( * HIGH COURT DATED:1010912025 CC TODfr-Y Rr tE S14 o( O (_) 1fl 0[T 2$[ * PAT * ORDER WP.No.32094 of 2024 ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION, WITHOUT COSTS t 0 * + * l. a I * l}