Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Southern Power Distribution ... vs T. Madhusudhan Rao on 3 August, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH : AMARAVATI
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUP KUMAR GOSWAMI, CHIEF JUSTICE
&
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA
WRIT APPEAL Nos.7 and 8 of 2021
(Taken up through video conferencing)
W.A.No.7 of 2021
Southern Power Distribution Company of A.P. Limited
(APSPDCL), Represented by its Chairman &
Managing Director, Corporate office # 19-12-65/A,
Srinivasapuram, Tiruchanoor Road,
Tirupati, Chittoor District.
.. Appellant
Versus
T. Madhusudhan Rao, S/o. T. Venkata Ratnam,
Aged about 44 years, Occ: PRO,
APSPDCL, R/o.3-103/A2, Behind Sri Kalyana
Venkateswaraswamy Temple,
Thummalagunta, Tirupathi Rural, Chittoor District,
and others.
.. Respondents
Counsel for the appellant : Mr. Y. Nagi Reddy
Counsel for respondent No.1 : Mr. G. Vidya Sagar, Sr.Counsel
for Mr. V. Padmanabha Rao
W.A.No.8 of 2021
Southern Power Distribution Company of A.P. Limited
(APSPDCL), Represented by its Chairman &
Managing Director, Corporate office # 19-12-65/A,
Srinivasapuram, Tiruchanoor Road,
Tirupati, Chittoor District.
.. Appellant
P.M. Jaikesh Yadav, S/o. P.M. Krishna Murthy,
Hindu, aged about 43 years,
R/o. 18-2-292/B-34, Municipal Colony,
Ashok Nagar, Tirupati, Chittoor District and others.
.. Respondents
Counsel for the appellant : Mr. Y. Nagi Reddy
2 HCJ & NJS,J
W.A.Nos.7 & 8 of 2021
Counsel for respondent No.1 : Mr. G. Vidya Sagar, Sr.Counsel
for Mr. V. Padmanabha Rao
Counsel for respondent No.5 : Mr. S. Satish Kumar,
GP for Energy
Dates of hearing : 28.06.2021 & 05.07.2021
Date of judgment : 03.08.2021
COMMON JUDGMENT
(per Arup Kumar Goswami, CJ)
Heard Mr. Y. Nagi Reddy, learned counsel for the appellant. Also
heard Mr. G. Vidya Sagar, learned senior counsel assisted by
Mr. V. Padmanabha Rao, learned counsel for respondent No.1 in both the
appeals/writ petitioners.
2. W.A.No.7 of 2021 arises out of a judgment and order dated
24.11.2020 in W.P.No.19890 of 2020, while W.A.No.8 of 2021 is
presented against a judgment and order dated 24.11.2020 in
W.P.No.19786 of 2020 passed by the learned single Judge allowing the
writ petitions.
3. W.P.No.19786 of 2020 was filed by respondent No.1 in W.A.No.8 of
2021 and W.P.No.19890 of 2020 was filed by respondent No.1 in
W.A.No.7 of 2021, challenging the termination of their services as Law
Officer and Public Relations Officer, respectively, in the appellant
company, namely, Southern Power Distribution Company of Andhra
Pradesh Limited (hereinafter referred to as 'APSPDCL') as well as
consequent cancellation of the orders issued for permanent
absorption/regularization of their services in the respective cadres of Law
Officer and Public Relations Officer.
4. Learned counsel for the parties submit that the issue arising in both
the appeals is one and the same and the decision in W.A.No.8 of 2021 will
3 HCJ & NJS,J
W.A.Nos.7 & 8 of 2021
also govern the decision in W.A.No.7 of 2021. Therefore, W.A.No.8 of
2021 is taken as a lead case and the materials on record in W.P.No.19786
of 2020, out of which W.A.No.8 of 2021 arises, will be taken into
consideration for the purpose of disposal of these two appeals. However,
it will be appropriate to take note of the basic facts presented in both the
writ petitions.
5. Respondent No.1 in W.A.No.8 of 2021/writ petitioner in
W.P.No.19786 of 2020 is a Law graduate and enrolled as an Advocate on
01.05.2002. He had participated in the selection process for the post of
Law Officer in the APSPDCL, pursuant to a notification dated 30.01.2012
issued by it. Subsequent to his selection, he was appointed to the said
post on contract basis for a period of one year by an order dated
16.06.2012 and he had joined duty on 21.06.2012. His contract service
was extended from time to time. He had submitted an application to
regularise his services by absorbing him into permanent cadre. Pursuant
thereto, by an order dated 26.08.2017, his services were regularized in
the cadre of Law Officer in the APSPDCL with an initial time-scale of pay
of Rs.41155-1700-44555 with usual allowances as admissible from time to
time with a probation of two years from the date of his regular
appointment. On successful completion of probation, proceedings dated
12.12.2019 were issued notifying satisfactory completion of probation.
6. While he was serving so, based on an enquiry report submitted by
the Inspector of Police (Vigilance & Security) of the Andhra Pradesh
Transmission Corporation (hereinafter referred to as 'APTRANSCO'), the
Full Board of the APSPDCL had resolved to terminate his services as there
was no specific approval/sanction from the Government of Andhra
Pradesh and also as the Government had not sanctioned the post of Law
4 HCJ & NJS,J
W.A.Nos.7 & 8 of 2021
Officer and accordingly, notice of termination dated 01.10.2020 was
issued asking him to offer his explanation within 21 days.
7. Challenging the said notice, he had approached this Court by filing
W.P.No.19786 of 2020. The writ petition was filed on 19.10.2020 and
when the matter was taken up for consideration on 22.10.2020, a memo
dated 22.10.2020 issued by the Chairman and Managing Director of the
APSPDCL terminating his services was placed before the Court by the
counsel for the APSPDCL by uploading the same. Thereupon, the said
memo dated 22.10.2020 as well as a consequential order of even date
issued by the Chairman and Managing Director of the APSPDCL cancelling
the earlier orders issued for permanent absorption/regularization of the
services of respondent No.1 in W.A.No.8 of 2021/writ petitioner in
W.P.No.19786 of 2020 were also put to challenge by amending the writ
petition.
8. Respondent No.1 in W.A.No.7 of 2021/writ petitioner in
W.P.No.19890 of 2020 is a post-graduate in Mass Communication and
Journalism. He had participated in the selection process for the post of
Public Relations Officer in the APSPDCL, pursuant to a notification dated
02.12.2005 issued by it. Subsequent to his selection, he was appointed to
the said post on contract basis for a period of one year by an order dated
18.01.2006. His contract service was extended from time to time. He had
submitted an application to regularise his services by absorbing him into
permanent cadre. Pursuant thereto, by an order dated 26.08.2017, his
services were regularized in the cadre of Public Relations Officer in the
APSPDCL with an initial time-scale of pay of Rs.41155-1700-44555 with
usual allowances as admissible from time to time with a probation of two
years from the date of his regular appointment. On successful completion
5 HCJ & NJS,J
W.A.Nos.7 & 8 of 2021
of probation, proceedings dated 12.12.2019 were issued notifying
satisfactory completion of probation.
9. While he was serving so, based on an enquiry report submitted by
the Inspector of Police (Vigilance & Security) of the APTRANSCO, the Full
Board of the APSPDCL had resolved to terminate his services on the
ground that his permanent absorption as Public Relations Officer is highly
irregular as no approval for such absorption was accorded by the
Government and as, such proposal was rejected. Accordingly, notice of
termination dated 01.10.2020 was issued asking him to offer his
explanation within 21 days.
10. Assailing the said notice, he had approached this Court by filing
W.P.No.19890 of 2020 on 19.10.2020. When the said writ petition was
taken up for consideration on 22.10.2020, the termination order passed
against him, vide memo dated 22.10.2020 of the Chairman and Managing
Director of the APSPDCL, was also placed before the Court by the counsel
for the APSPDCL by uploading the same. Thereupon, the said memo
dated 22.10.2020 as well as a consequential order of even date issued by
the Chairman and Managing Director of the APSPDCL cancelling the earlier
orders issued for permanent absorption/regularization of his services were
also put to challenge by amending the writ petition.
11. It is pleaded in W.P.No.19786 of 2020 that since its formation with
effect from 01.04.2000, the APSPDCL had been working under the control
and guidance of the APTRANSCO and subsequently, with the notification
of third transfer scheme vide G.O.Ms.No.58, Energy Department, dated
07.06.2005, in terms of the Electricity Reforms Act, 1998, the
shareholding of the APTRANSCO had been withdrawn and the APSPDCL
6 HCJ & NJS,J
W.A.Nos.7 & 8 of 2021
had become an independent entity and thus, there is no control of the
APTRANSCO over the affairs of the APSPDCL.
12. On the basis of the materials on record and after hearing the
learned counsel for the parties, the learned single Judge had allowed both
the writ petitions, setting aside the notices dated 01.10.2020, memos
dated 22.10.2020 and the consequential orders dated 22.10.2020,
impugned in the writ petitions. Consequential directions were also given to
allow respondent No.1 in W.A.No.8 of 2021/writ petitioner in
W.P.No.19786 of 2020 as Law Officer and respondent No.1 in W.A.No.7 of
2021/writ petitioner in W.P.No.19890 of 2020 as Public Relations Officer
of the APSPDCL with immediate effect with all emoluments and
allowances etc., to which they are entitled as regular employees.
13. The learned single Judge in W.P.No.19786 of 2020 had observed
that as would be evident from the notice dated 01.10.2020, a decision
was already taken to terminate the services of respondent No.1/writ
petitioner. That apart, respondent No.1/writ petitioner, by letter dated
03.10.2020, had asked for certain documents and had requested for grant
of further time for submission of reply from the date of furnishing those
documents. However, his request was not considered and, therefore,
there was violation of principles of natural justice. The learned Judge had
noticed that the termination of services of respondent No.1/writ petitioner
was on the basis of the report submitted by the Inspector of Police at
Headquarters (Vigilance & Security), APTRANSCO, wherein it was
concluded that the absorption of respondent No.1/writ petitioner was
improper and irregular and the report came to be considered in Full Board
meeting of the APSPDCL held on 26.09.2020 and based on the resolutions
passed in the said meeting, notice dated 01.10.2020 came to be issued.
7 HCJ & NJS,J
W.A.Nos.7 & 8 of 2021
The learned single Judge held that the APSPDCL, being Distribution
Company (DISCOM), is completely an independent and separate entity
and neither the APTRANSCO nor any other body has any role to play in
the affairs of the APSPDCL. In this connection, the learned single Judge
had also referred to the stand taken by the APSPDCL in certain
proceedings before this Court that the APTRANSCO has no control
mechanism over the affairs of the APSPDCL and accordingly, opined that
the APSPDCL grossly erred in relying on the report of the vigilance
authorities of the APTRANSCO against respondent No.1/writ petitioner. It
was, primarily, on the basis of the aforesaid findings that the orders
impugned in the writ petition came to be interfered with.
14. Mr. Y. Nagi Reddy, learned counsel for the appellant, submits that
though documents as sought by respondent No.1/writ petitioner were
furnished to him on 08.10.2020, he did not submit the explanation and
instead, again submitted a letter on 19.10.2020 seeking four weeks' time
for giving explanation and as there was no explanation forthcoming from
respondent No.1/writ petitioner though ample opportunity was granted
and there being no other alternative, termination order was issued to him.
It is submitted that the absorption of respondent No.1/writ petitioner is
contrary to the provisions of Andhra Pradesh (Regulation of Appointments
to Public Services and Rationalisation of Staff Pattern and Pay Structure)
Act, 1994 (for short, 'the Act of 1994'). Relying on the affidavit filed by
the third respondent in W.A.No.8 of 2021, i.e., Joint Managing Director
(Vigilance & Security), APTRANSCO, it is submitted that the APTRANSCO
and DISCOMS resolved to continue with the existing board proceedings
relating to vigilance cell and thus, the APTRANSCO vigilance wing has
jurisdiction over the DISCOMS and therefore, the third respondent is
8 HCJ & NJS,J
W.A.Nos.7 & 8 of 2021
empowered to conduct an enquiry on the complaints regarding corruption,
misuse of power, etc. against the officers of DISCOMS also. Accordingly,
it is submitted that the observation of the learned single Judge that the
APTRANSCO has no role to play in the affairs of the APSPDCL is without
any basis. It is further submitted by Mr. Nagi Reddy that even if there is
any infirmity in the notice dated 01.10.2020 and in the orders dated
22.10.2020, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned single
Judge had committed error of law in not permitting the APSPDCL to
initiate fresh proceedings.
15. Per contra, Mr. G. Vidya Sagar, learned senior counsel appearing
for respondent No.1/writ petitioner, submits that that there is violation of
principles of natural justice is writ large on the face of it and, therefore,
there is no illegality in the order of the learned single Judge in setting
aside the orders impugned. However, he fairly concedes that it will be
open for the APSPDCL to initiate fresh proceedings in accordance with
law. Learned senior counsel has drawn the attention of the Court to the
stand taken by the APTRANSCO in its counter filed in an earlier
proceeding, being C.C.No.346 of 2017, to demonstrate that the vigilance
authorities of the APTRANSCO have no jurisdiction to enter into the affairs
of the APSPDCL. He further submits that when it is the stand of the
APSPDCL that the appointment and regularization of respondent No.1/writ
petitioner is irregular, there is no necessity to rely upon any vigilance
report of a third party. It is further submitted by the learned senior
counsel that in case of termination of the services of an employee, the
procedure prescribed in Andhra Pradesh State Electricity Board Employees'
Discipline and Appeal Regulations (for short, 'the Discipline and Appeal
Regulations') has to be followed by issuing a charge sheet but the said
9 HCJ & NJS,J
W.A.Nos.7 & 8 of 2021
procedure had not been followed. Accordingly, he submits that the orders
of the learned single Judge warrant no interference in this appeal.
16. We have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the
parties and perused the materials on record.
17. At the very outset, it will be appropriate to take note of the Memo
dated 01.10.2020 assailed in W.P.No.19786 of 2020, which reads as
follows:
"CONFIDENTIAL:
SOUTHERN POWER DISTRIBUTION COMPANY OF A.P.
LIMITED
CORPORATE OFFICE :: TIRUPATI
Memo No.CMD/CGM/HRD/JS/HRD/GM/HR-II/DGM(DC)/PO(DC)/F.No.
D.No.2043/20. Dt.01-10-2020
Sub:- Estt - APSPDCL - TPT - P&G SER - DC Section -
Sri P.M.Jaikesh yadav, Law Officer/APSPDCL/Tirupati
- Irregular absorption - V&S Enquiry report -
Termination Notice - Issued.
Ref:- 1. S.O.O (CGM-HRD)Ms.No.102, Dt. 16.06.2012
2. S.O.O (CGM-HRD)Ms.No.793, Dt.26.08.2017
3. Memo.No.JMD(V&S)/PO(Vig.)/F.NO.269/18,
Dt.28.06.2018
4. Lr.No.110, Inspector of Police (Hqrs)/V&S/A.P.
Transco/VS/ Vijayawada, Dt.21.07.2020
5. Lr.No.JMS (V&S)/PO(Vig.)/F.No.418/2020,
Dt.13.08.2020
6. Resolution passed in the 116th Board meeting held
on 26.09.2020
*****
In the ref.1st cited, the Board of APSPDCL was accorded
approval for appointment of Sri P.M.Jaikesh Yadav, as Law
Officer for APSPDCL on Contract basis for a period of one year.
2. The Services of Sri P.M.Jaikesh Yadav, was regularized
as Law Officer/APSPDCL/Tirupati (Ex-cadre post) in the ref. 2nd
10 HCJ & NJS,J
W.A.Nos.7 & 8 of 2021
cited by mis convenience of the then CMD/APSPDCL/Tirupati
on 26.08.2017 when the orders are clear in the S.O.O. (CGM-
HRD) Ms.No.193, dt.26.10.2013 that for creation/Up-gradation
of any post the competent authority is Full Board, Govt. of
A.P.. Though in 88th APSPDCL Full Board Meeting it was
resolved that the proposals of request of Sri P.M.Jaikesh
Yadav, for permanent absorption in APSPDCL should be
submitted to the Government since the A.P.Transco has not
issued any T.O.O for creation of Assistant Secretary/Legal Post
in APSPDCL and there was no Government approval for
creation of Assistant Secretary/Legal Post in APSPDCL.
3. Further, in the ref.2nd cited, orders were issued
regularizing the services of Sri P.M.Jaikesh Yadav in the cadre
of Law Officer in APSPDCL (ex-cadre post) with condition that,
"the regularization orders are provisional and liable for
termination at any time without notice and without assigning
any reasons thereto."
4. The Vigilance authorities have conducted a discrete
enquiry and found that the Permanent absorption of Sri
P.M.Jaikesh Yadav, as Law officer/APSPDCL/Tirupati is irregular
and contrary to the regulations. In the reference 4th cited, the
Inspector of Police (V&S)/AP.Transco/Vijayawada has
concluded in his report that the APSPDCL is not having any
powers to absorb contract employees but, the above employee
was regularized.
5. The enquiry reports received from the JMD/V&S/
AP.Transco/ Vijayawada and Inspector of Police (V&S)/
11 HCJ & NJS,J
W.A.Nos.7 & 8 of 2021
AP.Transco/ Vijayawada was placed before the Full Board of
APSPDCL for examination.
6. After careful examination of entire case, the Full Board
has passed a resolution in the 116th Board meeting held on
26.09.2020 at Corporate Office/APSPDCL/Tirupati to issue
termination notice to the above incumbent.
7. In this context it is to enlighten that the permanent
absorption of Sri P.M.Jaikesh Yadav, as Law officer/
APSPDCL/Tirupati in APSPDCL is highly irregular and violation
of the APSEB Service Regulations as adopted by APSPDCL from
time to time. Further, it is also noticed that the Government
has not communicated the Law Officer post in continuation
proposals as sanctioned to APSPDCL. The Law Officer/APSPDCL
post not at all exists in APSPDCL Posts sanctions.
8. Hence, the Full Board/APSPDCL has resolved to
terminate the services of Sri P.M.Jaikesh Yadav, Law Officer as
there is no specific approval/sanction from the Government of
A.P and also the Government has not issued sanction for the
Law Officer post in their staff continuation/sanction proposals
of APSPDCL.
9. In view of the above Sri P.M.Jaikesh Yadav, Law Officer
is therefore directed to take this 21 days notice and submit his
explanation as to why his services should not be terminated
immediately as the Law Officer, as the approval was not
accorded by the Government and also has not issued the
sanction in their staff continuation/sanctions to APSPDCL.
10. The receipt of this memo shall be acknowledged."
12 HCJ & NJS,J
W.A.Nos.7 & 8 of 2021
18. A perusal of paragraphs 4 to 6 of the above memo goes to show
that it was indicated therein that discreet enquiry conducted by the
Vigilance authorities of the APTRANSCO established that permanent
absorption of respondent No.1/writ petitioner was irregular and contrary
to the regulations as the APSPDCL is not having any power to absorb
contract employees.
19. Paragraph 8 of the aforesaid memo in clear terms demonstrates
that the Full Board of the APSPDCL had resolved to terminate the services
of respondent No.1/writ petitioner as Law Officer as there was no specific
approval/sanction from the Government of A.P. and also the Government
had not issued sanction for the post of Law officer in their staff
continuation/sanction proposals of the APSPDCL.
20. Subsequent to the aforesaid resolution of the Board, notice dated
01.10.2020 was issued to respondent No.1/writ petitioner asking him to
submit an explanation within a period of 21 days.
21. Pursuant to the notice dated 01.10.2020, respondent No.1/writ
petitioner had submitted a letter dated 03.10.2020 asking for the
following documents:
"a. All the references quoted in the reference cited memo dt.
01.10.2020.
b. The copy of the complaint, corresponding letters between
APSPDCL and the APTRANSCO against the said complaint,
Enquiry Report basing on which the memo dt: 01.10.2020
was issued and further correspondence received by
APSPDCL from APTRANSCO.
13 HCJ & NJS,J
W.A.Nos.7 & 8 of 2021
c. The note file, minutes of Board, Resolution copy of Board
meeting held on 26.09.2020 with its approval copy for
issuance of reference cited.
d. The note files with the remarks of the then Directors along
with its approval before consideration of my absorption/
regularization orders along with earlier resolutions, Board
approvals and note files in respect of my representations.
e. S.O.O(CGM-HRD) Ms.No.193, Dt: 26.10.2013
f. The note files along with approvals before
absorption/regularization of the Company Secretary/
APSPDCL into the regular services of APSPDCL.
g. Copies of AAR reports pertaining to me from the year 2017-
18, 2018-19, 2019-20 and the copy of antecedents reports
received by APSPDCL."
22. Though Mr. Y. Nagi Reddy has submitted that all the documents, as
sought for by respondent No.1/writ petitioner in his letter dated
03.10.2020 had been furnished, a perusal of the letter dated 08.10.2020
issued by the Chief General Manager/HRD of the APSPDCL, wherein
reference to the representation dated 03.10.2020 of respondent No.1/writ
petitioner is made, would go to show that only the vigilance enquiry
report was provided to respondent No.1/writ petitioner and other
documents as sought for by him were not furnished. It was in the context
of the aforesaid, on 19.10.2020, respondent No.1/writ petitioner had
submitted a letter praying for four weeks' time for filing a detailed reply as
he was searching for documents which, according to him, were very
important and necessary. Therefore, the submission of Mr. Y. Nagi Reddy
that respondent No.1/writ petitioner, despite 21 days' time being granted,
14 HCJ & NJS,J
W.A.Nos.7 & 8 of 2021
did not file explanation and, therefore, the Board had taken recourse to
issuance of termination order dated 22.10.2020 cannot be countenanced.
23. Another significant aspect which cannot be lost sight of is that the
Full Board, the highest authority of the APSPDCL, had already decided to
terminate the services of respondent No.1/writ petitioner. In view of the
above, issuance of notice is a mere empty formality and a feeble attempt
to demonstrate adherence to the principles of natural justice by asking the
respondent No.1/writ petitioner to submit his explanation.
24. The submission of Mr. Y. Nagi Reddy that the vigilance wing of the
APTRANSCO has control over the affairs of the APSPDCL has no merit in
view of the stand taken by the APTRANSCO in the counter-affidavit filed in
C.C.No.346 of 2017 in W.P.M.P.No.41939 of 2016 in W.P.No.33995 of
2016, wherein the Chairman-cum-Managing Director of the APTRANSCO,
at paragraph 3, had stated as follows:
"3. At the outset I may be permitted to state that the
petitioners herein are not the employees of AP Transco and as
such, this respondent has no control over their service
conditions including their request for appointment by transfer
to the post of Sub-Engineers. It is further submitted that they
are the employees of Andhra Pradesh Southern Power
Distribution Company Limited (APSPDCL), which is an
independent company incorporated under the provisions of the
Indian Companies Act, 1958 and it is not a subsidiary of the AP
Transco. After the Electricity Reforms Act came into force, the
functions of distribution of power were taken away and
entrusted to the distribution companies incorporated by the
Government. The APSPDCL is one such distribution company in
15 HCJ & NJS,J
W.A.Nos.7 & 8 of 2021
the State of Andhra Pradesh. The petitioners herein were
appointed in APSPDCL and there is no relationship of employee
- employer between them and the AP Transco. Moreover, the
service regulations framed by the erstwhile APSEB were
adopted by the AP Transco. Likewise, the other power utilities
in the State of Andhra Pradesh are free to adopt the
regulations framed by the AP Transco from time to time. That
does not mean that this respondent has supervisory jurisdiction
on SPDCL or any other power utilities in the State of Andhra
Pradesh....."
25. In the aforesaid affidavit, the Chairman-cum-Managing Director of
the APTRANSCO had categorically stated that there is no relationship of
employee-employer between the employees of the APSPDCL and the
APTRANSCO and, therefore, the affidavit filed in W.A.No.8 of 2021 by the
Joint Managing Director (Vigilance & Security), APTRANSCO, who is an
authority subordinate to the Chairman-cum-Managing Director, pales into
insignificance.
26. In State of Bihar v. Kirti Narayan Prasad, reported in (2019)
13 SCC 250, the initiation of proceedings by the State Government to
terminate the services of such employees who were appointed without
following due process of recruitment by issuing show-cause notice and
calling upon each of them to establish legality of their respective
appointment, and termination of their services on the basis of the finding
of the State Committee on appreciation of the materials on record that
their appointment was illegal and termination, was approved. It was also
observed that appointment of the petitioners being ab initio void, they
cannot be said to be civil servants of the State and, therefore, holding
16 HCJ & NJS,J
W.A.Nos.7 & 8 of 2021
disciplinary proceedings envisaged by Article 311 of the Constitution or
under any other disciplinary Rules shall not arise.
27. The Discipline and Appeal Regulations provide for imposition of
penalties for misconduct as specified in Regulation 6. It is not a case
where the termination of services was resorted to because of any
misconduct. In the instant case, genuineness or legality of the
appointment/regularisation is in issue. In view of the decision of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kirti Narayan Prasad (supra), the argument
of Mr. G. Vidya Sagar that in terms of the procedure laid down in the
Discipline and Appeal Regulations, a charge sheet has to be issued to the
respondent No.1/writ petitioner is devoid of merit.
28. In view of the above discussion, we find no good ground to
interfere with the order(s) of the learned single Judge. We, however,
observe that if the competent authority, without reference to the vigilance
enquiry report of the APTRANSCO which formed the basis for the
impugned proceedings and the resolution passed by the Full Board of the
APSPDCL based on the said report, is of the opinion independently that
the absorption of respondent No.1 in both the appeals/writ petitioners is
not in accordance with law, such authority will be at liberty to issue fresh
show-cause notice to them in accordance with law. We also make it clear
that we have expressed no opinion on the merits of the case of either of
the parties.
29. Accordingly, the writ appeals are dismissed subject to the above
observations. No costs. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall also
stand closed.
ARUP KUMAR GOSWAMI, CJ NINALA JAYASURYA, J
IBL
