The Eastern Power Distribution ... vs Dabba Srikanth
2021 Latest Caselaw 1710 AP

       IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH : AMARAVATI



     HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUP KUMAR GOSWAMI, CHIEF JUSTICE
                                         &
                HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C. PRAVEEN KUMAR


                       WRIT APPEAL No.127 of 2021

                    (Taken up through video conferencing)


The Eastern Power Distribution Company of Ltd.,
Rep., by its Chairman and Managing Director,
Visakhapatnam, and others.
                                                    .. Appellants.
       Versus



Dabba Srikanth, S/o Augustin Williams,
Aged about 31 years, R/o Jaggampeta,
East Godavari District.
                                                    ..Respondent.

Counsel for the Appellants : Mr. Metta Chandra Sekhara Rao

Counsel for the respondent : Mr. V.V.N. Narayana Rao

ORAL JUDGMENT

Dt: 23.03.2021

(per Arup Kumar Goswami, CJ)

Heard Mr. Metta Chandra Sekhara Rao, learned counsel for the

appellants. Also heard Mr. V.V.N. Narayana Rao, learned counsel for the

respondent.

2. This appeal is preferred against the order dated 19.02.2020 passed by

the learned single Judge in W.P.No.3995 of 2020 setting aside the order dated

05.05.2017 and directing the appellants to treat the suspension period of the

HACJ & CPK, J WA No.127 of 2021

petitioner from 20.05.2013 to 29.03.2017 as 'duty period' and pay the arrears of

the salary for that period to the writ petitioner.

3. Mr. Metta Chandra Sekhar Rao, learned counsel for the appellants,

submits that the writ petition filed by the petitioner without availing alternative

remedy was not maintainable and, that apart, the writ petition was disposed of

without granting any opportunity to the appellants to file counter-affidavit and

therefore, the order of the learned single Judge is vitiated for not providing

opportunity to the appellants to contest the case on merits.

4. In the grounds of appeal also, similar grounds have been taken by the

appellants. Neither during the course of arguments nor in the grounds of

appeal, it has been contended as to how the order of the learned single Judge is

otherwise liable to be interfered with.

5. Even assuming that no opportunity was granted to file counter-affidavit,

the appellants, while filing appeal, should have indicated if opportunity was

granted to file counter-affidavit how they could have contested the case of the

writ petitioner on merits. As indicated earlier, the grounds of appeal are

conspicuously silent with regard to the aforesaid aspect of the matter, and only

on the grounds noticed supra, prayer is made to set aside the order of the

learned single Judge.

6. Perusal of the materials available on record goes to show that the writ

petitioner suffered a trial in Sessions Case No.156 of 2014 on the file of the IV

Additional Sessions Judge, Kakinada, along with six other accused for the

offences under Sections 302, 201, 120-B r/w 34 IPC. The IV Additional Sessions

Judge, Kakinada, on consideration of the materials on record, recorded a clear

finding that there is no evidence to show that accused 1 to 7 intentionally

HACJ & CPK, J WA No.127 of 2021

committed murder of the deceased by beating him indiscriminately. It was also

recorded that the prosecution has miserably failed in establishing guilt of the

accused 1 to 7.

7. Thus, it is seen that the writ petitioner was acquitted not on benefit of

doubt, but he was acquitted along with the other six accused as the prosecution

miserably failed to establish the guilt of the accused.

8. Perusal of the order dated 05.05.2017 goes to show that the suspension

period from 20.05.2013 to 29.03.2017 was regularized as 'NO WORK NO PAY'

duly limiting the pay and allowances to the subsistence allowance already paid

on the ground that the writ petitioner failed to maintain discipline in service,

integrity and honesty and he tarnished the image before the public due to his

"accuse in the criminal case" and judicial custody for more than three months.

9. No doubt, the writ petitioner was an accused in a criminal case. But once

he had been given clear acquittal, it cannot be construed that he had failed to

maintain discipline in service, integrity and honesty and he had tarnished the

image before the public. The reasons cited for the purpose of regularizing the

suspension period as 'NO WORK NO PAY' cannot receive judicial imprimatur.

10. It is also to be noted that there is no proposition in law that availability of

alternative remedy always creates a bar for entertainment of a writ petition. In

the facts of the case, when discretion is exercised by the learned single Judge to

entertain a writ petition, we see no good ground to take a view that because of

availability of alternative remedy, the order of learned single Judge is liable to be

set aside.

HACJ & CPK, J WA No.127 of 2021

11. In view of the above discussion, the writ appeal is devoid of merits and

accordingly, the same is dismissed. No costs. Pending miscellaneous

applications, if any, shall stand closed.

ARUP KUMAR GOSWAMI, CJ                                        C. PRAVEEN KUMAR, J
                                                                                         Nn

                                                          HACJ & CPK, J
                                                      WA No.127 of 2021

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUP KUMAR GOSWAMI, CHIEF JUSTICE & HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C. PRAVEEN KUMAR

WRIT APPEAL No.127 of 2021

(per Arup Kumar Goswami, CJ)

Dt: 23.03.2021

Nn