Dismissed

Rikka Dhilleswara Rao v. The Southern Power Distribution Company of A.P. Limited

Telangana HC8 Aug 2011WP/22182/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition regarding a show cause notice issued against an employee of A.P. Electricity Board for discrepancy in date of birth, the High Court dismissed the challenge, holding that the authority had jurisdiction and the cited grounds were insufficient to quash the notice, though enforcement of any adverse order was stayed for four weeks.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition is dismissed; however, any orders adverse to the petitioner shall not be enforced for a period of four weeks from the date of service.

Rikka Dhilleswara Rao Vs The Southern… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2011)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY

¶2

WRIT PETITION No.22182 of 2011

¶3

ORDER:

¶4

The petitioner joined the service of the erstwhile A.P. Electricity Board as N.M.R. in the year 1974. For want of proper testimonials to find out the date of birth of the petitioner, he was subjected to medical examination and his date of birth was entered as 01.07.1955. Thereafter, he was promoted as Assistant Lineman in the year 1990 and a Lineman in the year 2003.

¶5

The qualification for the post of Lineman is Matriculation. The petitioner studied Matriculation while in service and in the certificate, his date of birth was mentioned as 06.03.1959. Pointing out the discrepancy between the date of birth which is mentioned in the Service Register and the one mentioned in the Matriculation certificate, the respondents issued a show cause notice, dated 26.07.2011, directing the petitioner to explain as to why the punishment of dismissal from service be not imposed. The petitioner states that the report of the enquiry was not furnished to him and that raising several objections, he submitted explanation on 03.08.2011. He challenges the show cause notice, dated 26.07.2011.

¶6

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents.

¶7

The petitioner does not dispute the jurisdiction and the authority of the Divisional Engineer to initiate proceedings against him. The show cause notice can be interfered with by this Court, when it is issued by an authority not vested with the power. Even if various points urged by the petitioner, such as not furnishing of the report of the Enquiry Officer or initiation of proceedings 35 years after he entered the organisation, are debatable, they cannot constitute the basis to set aside the show cause notice.

¶8

Hence, the writ petition is dismissed, leaving it open to the petitioner to urge all the grounds before the disciplinary authority. It is, however, directed that in case any orders adverse to the interest of the petitioner are passed, they shall not be enforced for a period of four weeks from the date of service of the same. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶9

_____________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY,J Dt:08.08.2011 kdl

Rikka Dhilleswara Rao v. The Southern Power Distribution Company of A.P. Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rikka Dhilleswara Rao v. The Southern Power Distribution Company of A.P. Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

N. Rammohan Rao Vs The Managing Director, A.P. Mark Fed.

Plaban Kumar Pahari Vs The Union of India, Rep by its Secretary

S. Ravi Kumar, Vs The State of A.P.

D.Sudhakar Reddy, Vs The Registrar

M. Kurumurthy Vs The Regional Manager Apsrtc

N.Venkataiah, S/o Jangaiah, Vs The Regional Manager, Apsrtc