THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA
AND
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.RAJASHEKER REDDY
W.A.No.639 of 2019
JUDGMENT: (Per the Hon'ble the Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma)
The present writ appeal is arising out of the order dated
23.10.2018 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.14902 of
2005.
The undisputed facts of the case reveal that the respondent
in the present writ appeal was working as an Additional Assistant Engineer (Operation) at Bellary Road Section and a Memo was issued on 13.05.2002 seeking his explanation with respect to certain lapses. He did submit his reply and not being satisfied with the reply submitted by him, a show cause notice was issued on 05.06.2002. He submitted his explanation on 20.06.2002. However, without considering his explanation, an order was passed inflicting the punishment of withholding of two increments without cumulative effect. The facts of the case also reveal that he did prefer an appeal against the order of punishment and while the appeal was pending, another memo was issued on 15.03.2003 placing him under suspension and appointing an enquiry officer on the same set of allegations. The facts of the case further reveal that the enquiry officer has framed charge memo dated 29.04.2003 and after conducting the enquiry, he submitted a report holding the charges as proved. Thereafter, an order dated 07.10.2003 was passed imposing the punishment of stoppage of three increments with cumulative effect. The order of punishment was under challenge before the learned Single Judge. 2
The learned Single Judge, keeping in view the judgment delivered in the case of Ch. Appala Reddy vs. Eastern Power Distribution Company of A.P. Ltd1 has set aside the order of punishment, on the ground that once the punishment was imposed by the competent disciplinary authority, no charge memo could have been issued by the enquiry officer on the same set of charges. The learned Single Judge has set aside the order of punishment dated 07.10.2003 with a liberty to initiate appropriate action in accordance with law.
The factum of issuance of charge memo by the enquiry officer has not been disputed before this court and therefore, as the charge memo was issued by the enquiry officer, the subsequent proceedings are certainly not in consonance with the statutory provisions. Otherwise also, in respect of same set of charges, once the respondent/writ petitioner was punished, there could not have been a subsequent charge memo without reviewing the earlier order of punishment.
Resultantly, this court does not find any reason to entertain the writ appeal. The writ appeal stands dismissed.
Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.
___________________________ SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA, CJ ___________________________ A.RAJASHEKER REDDY, J 22.11.2021 JSU 1 2005(3) ALT 632 (D.B.)