U. Krishna Murthy, Visakhapatnam. Vs Eastern Power Distribution Company, Visakhapatnam&Ano

“…to issue an appropriate writ or order or direction, more particularly, one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring Memo. No.CGM/HRD/DS/AS/ PODC/JN/F 606/02/D.No.703/03, dated 09.05.2003, issued by the 1^st respondent, as confirmed in Memo. No.CGM/HRD/DS/AS/PODC/JN/F 606/02/D.No.1984/03, dated 03.12.2003, as illegal arbitrary and in violation of principles of natural justice, and issue a consequential direction to the respondents to consider promotion of the petitioner in the category of Superintending Engineer from the date of his immediate junior and grant all necessary and attendant benefits like salary, allowances seniority etc….”

¶16

2. Petitioner stated to have been initially appointed as Junior

¶17

Engineer in erstwhile Andhra Pradesh State Electricity Board. Later, he

¶18

2

¶19

CGR, J. W.P.No.8307 of 2004

¶20

was promoted as Assistant Divisional Engineer on 19.06.1987 and as Divisional Engineer in the month of December, 1997. At relevant point of time, petitioner was working as Divisional Engineer (M&P), and was staying at Visakhapatnam. He was residing in the premises owned by his wife at M.V.P.Colony, Visakhapatnam. The said premises initially stated to have had a single-phase meter, and later the said service connection was converted to three-phase meter in the year 1998. However, based on inspection that was conducted on 08.08.2000, the Inspecting Officer had issued report stating that there were cracks in the glass over the meter at the time of inspection, on account of which, it was alleged that in view of tampering of terminal cover, there was pilferage and hence, demand for short billing of an amount of Rs.43,613/- was raised on the consumer i.e., wife of petitioner. Based on the said incident, as petitioner was also residing in the same premises, he was placed under suspension on 14.08.2000 pending disciplinary proceedings. Charge memo, dated 21.10.2000, came to be issued on the allegation of abetting pilferage of energy. Petitioner has filed statement of defence on 12.11.2000 refuting the allegations made. Eventually, during the pendency of the enquiry, the suspension came to be revoked and he was readmitted into service on 29.03.2001. Initially, the enquiry officer, who proceeded with the enquiry, submitted report holding that the charges were not proved, however, the competent

¶21

3

¶22

CGR, J. W.P.No.8307 of 2004

¶23

authority, disagreeing with the same, has decided to order second enquiry, who, ultimately, submitted the enquiry report holding that the charges levelled against the delinquent employee were proved. In furtherance to the same, the 1^st respondent issued show-cause notice, dated 26.03.2003, calling upon him to submit explanation after enclosing the copy of the enquiry report. The said show-cause notice indicated that the 1^st respondent has come to provisional conclusion to impose punishment of stoppage of one increment with cumulative effect, besides treating the period of suspension from 14.08.2000 to 19.04.2001 as E.O.L, limiting the pay and allowances to subsistence allowance already drawn during the suspension period. Petitioner had submitted explanation, dated 17.04.2003, denying the charges and also the erroneous findings of the enquiry officer. The 1^st respondent has eventually passed orders, dated 09.05.2003, holding that in view of the enquiry report, it had come to conclusion to confirm the punishment as envisaged in the show-cause notice and accordingly, awarded the punishment. Assailing the same, petitioner preferred appeal before the Board of 1^st respondent. By order, dated 03.12.2003, as communicated by the Chief Managing Director, A.P.E.P.D.C.L., the appeal preferred as such came to be rejected by the Board for the reason that no new points were raised in appeal for consideration. Assailing these orders, the present writ petition is filed.

¶24

4

¶25

CGR, J. W.P.No.8307 of 2004

¶26

3. Heard Sri V.Padmanabha Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Sri V.V.Satish, learned standing counsel, appearing for the respondents.

¶27

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner mainly contended that neither order of disciplinary authority nor appellate Board contained any reasons dealing with the explanation offered by the petitioner in coming to the drastic conclusion of imposing penalty, and that too after retirement, which is clearly vitiated. He further contended that the petitioner had at the very first instance itself in the explanation submitted to the show-cause notice, dated 26.03.2003, had taken objection that the petitioner was not provided due opportunity of participation before the enquiry officer and inasmuch as the same would go to the root of the matter, the disciplinary authority ought to have dropped all further proceedings, as the same clearly tantamounted to violation of principles of natural justice. He further contended that even as per Regulation 10(3) of the Andhra Pradesh Electricity Board Employees’ Discipline and Appeal Regulations (for short, “the Regulations”), the authority imposing any penalty shall record the allegations on which a person is sought to be punished, the charges framed, the objections and evidence taken on record, the findings and grounds thereof, and having regard to the entirety of the matter, the final order to be passed, should also state the grounds on which the punishment/penalty has been imposed. Further,

¶28

5

¶29

CGR, J. W.P.No.8307 of 2004

¶30

even the appellate authority, in view of Regulation 15, is required to provide reasons while deciding the appeal, independent of the findings recorded by the primary authority, which clearly lack in the present case. To contend that recording of reasons is a pre-requisite and not doing so would vitiate the very proceedings itself, reliance has been placed on the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Allahabad Bank v. Krishna Narayan Tewari¹ .

¶31

5. Per contra , learned standing counsel for the respondents tried to sustain both the orders of disciplinary authority as well as appellate authority. However, in the course of arguments, when it was specifically pointed out to the learned standing counsel to point out as to whether any specific reasons have been recorded by either of the authority in coming to the final conclusion of concluding the disciplinary proceedings and imposing the penalty, it has been fairly stated that none of these orders did provide for any such reasons.

¶32

6. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the Regulations clearly envisaged that the disciplinary authority as well as the appellate authority are required to apply their mind to the objections raised by the delinquent employee before passing any final order of imposing punishment, both to the aspects of proving the charges and

¶33

1 (2017) 2 SCC 308

¶34

6

¶35

CGR, J. W.P.No.8307 of 2004

¶36

desirability of imposing quantum of punishment/penalty. The Hon’ble Apex Court, dealing with a similar situation, has candidly enunciated that non-recording of reasons in support of any conclusion, both either by the disciplinary authority or the appellate authority, would vitiate the findings and conclusions drawn, and in such cases, the matters have to be remanded to the primary authority concerned to redo such exercise.

¶37

7. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that considering the length of time the matter has been pending before this Court, instead of remanding again the matter back to the primary authority, the same be decided in the present writ petition, however, inasmuch as, there are allegations of abetting the pilferage and that even criminal proceedings have also been initiated against the consumer, who is wife of the petitioner, it is more desirable to remand the matter back to the disciplinary authority to consider all aforesaid aspects in the best interest of the petitioner.

¶38

8. In view of the same, the impugned order, dated 09.05.2003, passed by the disciplinary authority, as well as the order, dated 03.12.2003, passed by the appellate authority, are hereby set aside, and the matter is remanded back to the disciplinary authority for de novo hearing of the proceedings. The 1^st respondent disciplinary authority is directed to consider the explanation submitted by the petitioner on its

¶39

7

¶40

CGR, J. W.P.No.8307 of 2004

¶41

own merits and, after providing due opportunity of hearing, a speaking order be passed. The aforesaid exercise is directed to be completed within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶42

9. Accordingly, the writ petition stands disposed of. No order as to costs.

¶43

As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending consideration, if

¶44

any, in this case shall stand closed.

¶45

_____________________________ JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN

¶46

Date:20.11.2025. cs

U. Krishna Murthy, Visakhapatnam. v. Eastern Power Distribution Company, Visakhapatnam&Ano

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

U. Krishna Murthy, Visakhapatnam. v. Eastern Power Distribution Company, Visakhapatnam&Ano

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Jeevan Jyothi High School Vs the Union of India

Bora Ramachandra Reddy Vs The Union of India

Lella Francis Finney Vs the Union of India

Pragathi Fertilizers Ltd,Hyd Vs Chairma&P.O.Indus.Tri-Laourcourt,Visaika

P.Shaik Shavali (PC.212) Vs the Inspector General of Police and Another

M.Ananda Vs His Holiness Sri Tiruvengada Pedda Jeeyangar Swamy