Partly allowed

Southern Power Distribution Company of Andhra Pradesh v. P. Nagamalleshwara Rao

Telangana HC16 Jun 2014WA/1067/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court partly allowed appeals by setting aside disciplinary dismissal orders issued due to procedural violation where an Enquiry Officer was appointed before a charge sheet. The department was directed to re-initiate proceedings correctly within four weeks while restoring pension rights.

What did the court decide?

Disciplinary proceedings set aside; repeat enquiry to be conducted within four weeks; minimum revised pay necesssry.

Southern Power Distribution Company of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2014)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY

¶2

AND

¶3

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA KODANDA RAM

¶4

Writ Appeal Nos.1067 & 1068 of 2010

¶5

COMMON JUDGMENT: (Per the Hon’ble Sri Justice L.Narasimha Reddy)

¶6

These two appeals are filed against a common order, dated 30.12.2009 in W.P.Nos.22368 and 23010 of 2008. The appellants are common and the sole respondent (for short ‘the respondents’), in each of the writ appeals, filed the writ petitions.

¶7

The respondents were working in the office of the Assistant Accounts Officer, Electricity Revenue Office, Tenali, which is part of establishment of the 1^st appellant. Disciplinary proceedings were initiated against them, by appointing the Chief General Manager (Expenditure), Corporation Office, Southern Power Distribution Company of A.P. Limited, the 4^th appellant herein, as an Enquiry Officer. He, in turn, issued a charge sheet to the respondents, alleging certain acts of misconduct. The respondents submitted their explanations and thereafter, the 4^th appellant conducted the enquiry. Enquiry reports were submitted, holding that the charges framed against the respondents, are proved. Taking the same into account, the Appointing Authority i.e. the 2^nd appellant, issued show cause notices, and directed the respondents to explain as to why the major punishment be not imposed upon them. Explanations were submitted. The 2^nd appellant passed an order, dated 27.09.2005, dismissing the respondent in W.A.No.1067 of 2010. Challenging the

¶8

same, he field W.P.No.9132 of 2006. The writ petition was allowed on 01.11.2007 and the order of dismissal was set aside by pointing out certain defects. Liberty was given to the appellants to take necessary steps in accordance with law. Thereafter, another show cause notice was issued to him and a fresh order dated 29.05.2008 was passed imposing the punishment of dismissal from service. Assailing the said order, he filed W.P.No.22368 of 2008.

¶9

Through another order, dated 29.05.2008, the 2^nd appellant dismissed the respondent in W.A.No.1068 of 2010. After exhausting the departmental remedy of appeal, he filed W.P.No.23010 of 2008.

¶10

The respondents pleaded that the procedure adopted by the appellants is contrary to law and the Service Regulations. They urged that the 2^nd appellant straightaway appointed the 4^th appellant, the Enquiry Officer, even before any charge sheet was issued and explanation was submitted. It is also their case that the charges were not specific and there is total non-application of mind, by the Enquiry Officer as well as the disciplinary authority. Reliance was placed upon a judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in Ch.Appala Reddy v. Eastern Power Distribution Company of A.P. Limited^[1] .

¶11

Learned Single Judge allowed both the writ petitions by recording a finding that the procedure adopted by the appellants is contrary to APSEB Discipline and Appeal Regulations (for short ‘the Regulations’) and has set aside the orders of dismissal. Hence, these two writ appeals.

¶12

Sri P.Laxma Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for the appellants, submits that the respondents did not raise any objection about the procedure adopted in the departmental enquiry and that it was not at all open to them to raise it for the first time in the writ

¶13

petition. He further submits that even if it is assumed that there was any defect in the enquiry, the learned Single Judge ought to have left it open, instead of closing all the proceedings.

¶14

M/s. M.Pitchaiah and S.Ravindranath, learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, submit that their clients raised a pure question of law in the writ petitions and the learned Single Judge has followed the judgment rendered by the Division Bench of this Court in Ch.Appala Reddy’s case (supra). They submit that once the disciplinary enquiry itself was found to be contrary to the express provision of law, the entire proceedings are liable to be quashed and that the order passed by the learned Single Judge, does not warrant any interference.

¶15

The respondents were employees of the erstwhile APSEB and their services were governed by the Regulations. In the recent past, the Board was reorganised and the 1^st appellant is one of its offshoots.

¶16

In the course of verification of accounts of the Company, certain financial irregularities involving huge amounts were noticed. Therefore, it was decided by the management of the 1^st appellant to initiate disciplinary proceedings against the guilty employees. The 2^nd appellant straightaway appointed the 4^th appellant as an Enquiry Officer. The latter, in turn, issued a charge sheet and conducted the enquiry. Ultimately, orders of dismissal were passed against both the employees. The only difference is that the respondents have pursued the remedies in a slightly different manner, before the present writ petitions came to be filed.

¶17

The principal contention urged by the respondents in their writ petitions was that the appointment of the Enquiry Officer at the

¶18

threshold of the proceedings itself, without even issuing charge sheet and receiving explanation, is contrary to law. Reliance was placed on the judgment of this Court in Ch.Appala Reddy’s case (supra). In the said judgment, to which one of us (LNR,J) is a party, the purport of the Regulations was discussed at length, and it was held that appointment of an Enquiry Officer even before a charge sheet is issued by the Disciplinary Authority and explanation is submitted by the delinquent employee is opposed to law and contrary to Regulation 10(2)(a) of the Regulations. The learned Single Judge followed the same, and allowed the writ petitions. To that extent, there cannot be any grievance either for the appellants or for the respondents as long as the judgment in Ch.Appala Reddy’s case, holds the filed.

¶19

The learned Single Judge, however, did not leave it open to the appellants to proceed further. The mere fact that a wrong procedure was followed in the disciplinary proceedings cannot, lead to a situation where the proceedings are closed once for all, without any result. It is fairly well settled that whenever any procedural irregularity is noticed in the disciplinary proceedings, the High Court can set aside them to the extent they are illegal and permit the employer to continue the proceedings from the stage where they stand, after the illegal part is set aside. In the instant case, the illegality crept at the threshold itself. Therefore, the Court cannot preclude the appellants from conducting proceedings, in accordance with law.

¶20

Hence, the writ appeals are partly allowed directing that,

¶21

a) the disciplinary proceedings, against the respondents, including the report of the Enquiry Officer, shall stand set aside;

¶22

b) the 2^nd appellant shall take a decision as to whether he intends to continue the disciplinary proceedings against the respondents; within four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order;

¶23

c) if a decision is taken to continue the proceedings or charge sheets, show cause notices shall be issued to the respondents within four weeks thereafter. Depending upon the explanation, which the respondents may submit, the decision to appoint an Enquiry Officer shall be taken within four weeks thereafter. In case the Enquiry Officer is appointed, the departmental enquiry shall be completed within four weeks from the date of appointment of the Enquiry Officer; and

¶24

d) In the meanwhile, the 2^nd appellant shall pay the minimum of the revised pay scale attached to the concerned post, held by the respondents.

¶25

There shall be no order as to costs.

¶26

The miscellaneous petitions filed in these writ appeals shall also stand disposed of.

¶27

____________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY, J.

¶28

_____________________ CHALLA KODANDA RAM, J.

¶29

Date:16.06.2014 GJ

¶30

[1] 2005 (3) ALD 525 (DB)

Southern Power Distribution Company of Andhra Pradesh v. P. Nagamalleshwara Rao

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Southern Power Distribution Company of Andhra Pradesh v. P. Nagamalleshwara Rao

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The Zonal Manager Vs Md.Abdul Razzaq

Southern Power Distribution Company of A.P. Ltd., Vs J.Ramana Devi

Telangana Boggu Gani Karmika Sangam Vs Bantu Saraiah

The Andhra Pradesh State Housing Corporation Ltd. Vs M.v.Somasundaram S/o Vsr Somarajulu

B. Vimaladevi Vs R.B.V.R.R. Womens College

The Registrar Vs Shri a.Machender Rao