Y Rama Reddy Vs the Ap Genco — Andhra Pradesh HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Y Rama Reddy Vs the Ap Genco — Andhra Pradesh HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Review I.A.No.2 of 2026 allowed: paragraph No.13 of the order in W.P.No.26892 of 2024 substituted with Regulation No.10 of the Andhra Pradesh State Electricity Board Employees Discipline and Appeal Regulation, 1970, and paragraph No.16 modified to include the consequential reliefs as sought for.

Issue for consideration

Whether paragraph No.13 of the judgment in W.P.No.26892 of 2024 ought to be corrected by substituting Rule 20 of the A.P.C.S (CCA) Rules, 1991 with Regulation No.10 of the Andhra Pradesh State Electricity Board Employees Discipline and Appeal Regulation, 1970, which is applicable to the petitioner. +1 more

Court's answer

The regulations applicable to the petitioner are the Andhra Pradesh State Electricity Board Employees Discipline and Appeal Regulation, 1970.

Ratio / Principle

Paragraph No.13 of the order in W.P.No.26892 of 2024 is substituted with Regulation No.10 of the Andhra Pradesh State Electricity Board Employees Discipline and Appeal Regulation, 1970 (Procedure for Imposing penalties), whose text is extracted in the order.

Key takeaways

Since the writ petition is allowed, the petitioner would be entitled for consequential reliefs; the writ petition is allowed with consequential reliefs, as prayed for.ratio¶49
The Writ Petition is reviewed and modified as 'including the consequential reliefs, as sought for' in paragraph No.16 of the order.ratio¶49
Review I.A.No.2 of 2026 is allowed.ratio

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Review (under Section 151 CPC) of the judgment dated 19.12.2025 in W.P.No.26892 of 2024 (Y Rama Reddy, Personnel Officer, APGENCO v. AP GENCO and others), by the writ petitioner. The petitioner pointed out that the earlier order had referred to Rule 20 of the A.P.C.S (CCA) Rules, 1991 in paragraph No.13, whereas the regulation applicable to him is Rule 10 of the Andhra Pradesh State Electricity Board Employees Discipline and Appeal Regulation, 1970, the two being broadly the same. Holding that the regulations applicable to the petitioner are the APSEB Employees Discipline and Appeal Regulation, 1970, the Court substituted paragraph No.13 with Regulation No.10 ('Procedure for Imposing penalties'), the text of which is reproduced in the order. On the second relief, since the writ petition had been allowed, the petitioner was held entitled to consequential reliefs; paragraph No.16 was modified to read 'including the consequential reliefs, as sought for'. Review I.A.No.2 of 2026 allowed.

APHC010517822024

[3460]

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

MONDA Y , THE TWENTIETH DAY OF APRIL TW O THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX

PRESENT

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY

REVIEW I.A.NO.2 OF 2026

IN

WRIT PETITION NO: 26892 OF 2024

Between:

Y RAMA REDDY, S/O Y.CHENNA REDDY, AGE D 56 YEARS, PERSONNEL OFFICER,APGENCO, SRISAILAM R IGHT BANK SRISAILAM, KURNOOL (NANDYAL) DISTRICT.

...PETITIONER

AND

THE AP GENCO, REP BY ITS MANAGING DIRE C TOR, VIDYUT SOUDHA, GUNAD A LA VIJAYAWADA.

THE JOINT SECR E TARY, APGENCO, GUNADALA, VI J AYAWADA.

THE CHIEF GE N ERAL MANAGER, A.P.GENCO REP BY ITS MANAGING DI R ECTOR, VIDYUT SOUDHA, GUNADALA VIJAYAWADA.

D SUBBAIAH, S /O NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER. PERSONNEL O F FICER, RTPP. KALAMALLA, Y SR KADAPA DISTRICT.

...RESPONDENT(S):

IA NO: 2 OF 2026

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circu m stances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court m ay be pleased may be pleased to revie w the judgement in WP No.26892/202 4 dt. 19.12.2025 incorporating the APSE B Employees Discipline and Appeal R e gulations, 1970

2

applicable to the petitioner and respondents and grant all consequential reliefs flowing out of the judgement as may be deemed just and necessary in the interests of justice.

Counsel for the Petitioner:

1.KASA JAGANMOHAN REDDY

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

1.NAGARAJU NAGURU

2.M RAVINDRA

3.K.KRISHNABUSHAN CHOWDARY SC For APGENCO

3

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY

REVIEW I.A.NO.2 OF 2026

IN

WRIT PETITION NO: 26892 OF 2024

ORDER:

The present review application is filed by the writ petitioner, seeking to review the order passed by this Court in W.P.No.26892 of 2024 dated 19.12.2025.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that Rule 20 of A.P.C.S (CCA) Rules, 1991, was referred to in paragraph No.13 and that as regards the petitioner, the Rule 10 of Andhra Pradesh State Electricity Board Employees Discipline and Appeal Regulation, 1970, have to be referred. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that broadly the Rule 10 Andhra Pradesh State Electricity Board Employees Discipline and Appeal Regulation, 1970 and Rule 20 of A.P.C.S (CCA) Rules, 1991 are the same and it is on the count the present review was sought.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as the consequential benefits were not granted that specific relief was sought by the petitioner.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.

Considering the fact that the applicable regulations to the petitioner are the Andhra Pradesh State Electricity Board Employees Discipline and Appeal Regulation, 1970, the paragraph No.13 is substituted with regulation No. 10 of the above mentioned regulations. Regulation No.10 is extracted below:

“10. Procedure for Imposing penalties:

4

(1) No order imposing on a member of a service a penalty specified in items (i), (ii) and (iii) (v) or (ix) of 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

(b) Such representation, if any, is taken into consideration by the authority competent to impose the penalty.

(2) (a) In every case where it is proposed to impose on a member of a service any of the penalties specified in items (iv), (vi), (vii) and (viii) in Regulation 5, the authority competent to impose the penalty shall appoint an enquiry Officer, who shall be superior in rank to the person on whom it is proposed to impose the penalty, or shall itself hold an enquiry either SUO-MOTU or on a direction from a higher authority. In every such case the grounds on which it is proposed to take action shall be reduced to the form of definite charge or charges, which shall be communicated to the person charged, together with a 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. Ho shall be required, within a reasonable time, to file a written statement of his defence 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 defence be permitted to inspect and take extracts from such official records as he may specify, provided that the enquiry officer may, for reasons to be recorded in writing refuse such permission, if, 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 defence within the specified time or such further time as may have been given, an oral enquiry shall be held if such an enquiry is desired by the person charged or is decided upon by the 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 crossexamine the witnesses, 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 oral enquiry is completed, the person charged shall be entitled to file, if he so desires, any further written statement of his defence. If no oral enquiry is held and the person charged desires to be heard in person, a personal 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 the proceedings of the enquiry to the authority competent to impose the penalty unless he is himself such an officer. The proceedings shall contain the charges framed against the person charged along with the grounds of charge, written statement filed in defence, if any, a sufficient record of the evidence adduced during the oral enquiry, a memorandum of the point urged by the person charged during the personal hearing, if,

5

any, a statement record of the evidence adduced during the oral enquiry, a memorandum of the point urged by the person charged during the personal enquiry, if any, a statement of the findings of the enquiry officer on the different charges and the grounds therefor. ”

As regards the 2^nd relief, since the writ petition is allowed, the petitioner would be entitled for consequential reliefs. Therefore, the writ petition is allowed with consequential reliefs, as prayed for. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is reviewed and modified as ‘including the consequential reliefs, as sought for’ in paragraph No.16 of the order.

In that view, review I.A.No.2 of 2026 is allowed.

________________________ JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY

20.04.2026 MDP