HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA
WRIT PETITION No. 13516 OF 2009
ORDER:
Challenging Memo dated 26.06.2009 issued by the Chairman and Managing Director, Central Power Distribution Company of A.P., Hyderabad, petitioner is before this Court.
2. It is stated that petitioner was originally appointed as Helper on 04.05.1990 and thereafter, promoted to the posts of Assistant Lineman, Lineman, Sub-Engineer and Additional Assistant Engineer. While he was discharging duties as such at Uravakonda, he was trapped by ACB on 31.10.2003 and was placed under suspension by Memo dated 31.10.2003. Police also filed C.C.No. 13 of 2004 on the file of Additional Special Judge for SPE and ACB Cases, Hyderabad. Subsequently, he was reinstated into service vide letter dated 22.06.2006 and posted under the control of Superintending Engineer, Operation, Nalgonda. After trial, petitioner was convicted for the offences under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. Petitioner is stated to have preferred Criminal Appeal No. 686 of 2009. Vide order dated 24.06.2009 in Crl.A.M.P.No. 1499 of 2009, this Court suspended execution of sentence and directed him to be enlarged on bail. While so, on the 2 basis of judgment of ACB Court, the 1st respondent issued the impugned memo dismissing him from service. Now the grievance of petitioner is that in view of order of the High Court, pending Criminal Appeal, he is entitled to continue in service for, there is no provision / Regulation for automatic dismissal on conviction and sentence.
3. The 1st respondent filed counter-affidavit. It is stated that in terms of Regulation 10(5)(a) of APSE Board Employees' Discipline and Appeal Regulations as adopted by APCPDCL, the disciplinary authority has issued orders duly dismissing petitioner from service from the date of pronouncement of judgment in C.C.No. 13 of 2004. It is further stated that Government issued Memo dated 26.11.2001 based on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in K.C. Sareen v. CBI Chandigarh (2001(5) Supreme 437), wherein orders were issued to dismiss the accused officer from service immediately on conviction even if appeal filed by him is pending. The said Memo was adopted by AP Transco in T.O.O.GM(IR-Per) Ms.No. 45, dated 22.05.2002 which are applicable to employees of APCPDCL. It is further stated that High Court has suspended sentence only but not conviction, hence dismissal order passed by the disciplinary authority is in accordance with Rules and Regulations in vogue. 3
4. Heard learned counsel for petitioner, Ms. Nikitha for Sri R. Vinod Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for TS TRANSCO and Government Pleader for Services -II for 2nd respondent.
5. Evidently, impugned Memo was issued consequent to judgment in C.C. No. 13 of 2004 against which Criminal Appeal is pending. This Court by order dated 24.06.2009 in Crl.A.M.P.No. 1499 of 2009 suspended sentence only but not conviction. When the subject issue is pending consideration in the Appeal, this Court cannot go into the merits or otherwise of the impugned memo.
6. The Writ Petition is therefore, disposed of with liberty to petitioner to approach this Court to avail further remedies, if any after disposal of Criminal Appeal No. 686 of 2009. No costs.
7. Consequently, the miscellaneous Applications, if any shall stand closed.
-------------------------------------- NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA, J 06th September 2023 ksld