Banoth Ravi, Warangal Dist. vs The Ts.N.P.D.C.L.,Warangal.
2021 Latest Caselaw 4220 Tel

THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA
                                             AND
              THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N. TUKARAMJI

                                W.A.No.95 of 2016
JUDGMENT:      (Per the Hon'ble the Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma)



        The present writ appeal is arising out of the order dated

27.01.2015 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.41350 of

2014.

        The facts of the case reveal that the appellant before this

court was appointed as an Assistant Engineer on 18.05.2005 and

while he was working at Warangal, he inspected Ashoka Bar &

Restaurant, Nakkalagutta, Hanamkonda, between 15.00 and 16.45

hours on 25.02.2011. He noticed the tampering in the meter box

and action was initiated against the consumer for evasion of

electricity consumption charges.                   There was a complaint against

the appellant relating to his alleged involvement in receiving illegal

gratification and of breachment of departmental rules and it was

alleged that the appellant has wilfully and with mala fide intention,

approached the consumer personally/over                              phone/representative

and has bargained with him for reducing the theft load.                            Other

charges were also levelled against the appellant and thereafter, a

detailed enquiry took place in the matter.

        It is true that the documentary evidence produced before the

enquiry officer reveals that deliberately, with mala fide intention,

the appellant has recorded different loads on the same items on

the date of inspection, in order to ensure that the revenue which

was to be worked out is reduced drastically. Before the enquiry

officer, charges were established.                        In spite of the gravity of

misconduct, the Chairman-cum-Managing Director, based upon
                                  2




the enquiry report, has inflicted the punishment of stoppage of two

annual grade increments with cumulative effect, by order dated

19.02.2013.   The said order was passed after issuing a proper

show cause notice and no procedural irregularity was established

before the learned Single Judge.       Before this court also, no

procedural lapse has been pointed out nor is evident from the

record.

      Learned counsel for the appellant has vehemently argued

before this court that the appellant was working in the post of

Assistant Engineer and the Chief Engineer was the competent

authority to inflict the punishment. However, the punishment has

been inflicted upon him by the Managing Director and therefore, as

the Managing Director is an appellate authority and the Chief

Engineer is the disciplinary authority, the appellant does not have

a right to appeal and the order of punishment deserves to be set

aside on this count alone.

      Learned counsel for the respondent has argued before this

court that the punishment has been inflicted upon by an authority

certainly higher than the disciplinary authority. However, it is not

a case where there is no appellate authority available in respect of

orders passed by the Chairman-cum-Managing Director and

appeal lies to the Board. The appellant did submit an appeal to

the Board, which was dismissed by the Board by an order dated

03.10.2013. The order dated 03.10.2013 was not challenged

before the learned Single Judge nor before this court.

In the considered opinion of this court, once no procedural

irregularity has taken place in the departmental enquiry, the

appellant has been dealt with great leniency, the order of

punishment has been passed by the Chairman-cum-Managing

Director, who is certainly a higher authority than the Chief

Engineer, there is a forum of appeal also before the Board and the

same was preferred by the present appellant/writ petitioner, the

question of interference does not arise. Learned counsel for the

appellant has not been able to point out any procedural

irregularity or violation of statutory provision of law in the matter.

Resultantly, this court does not find any reason to interfere

with the order passed by the learned single Judge.

The writ appeal is dismissed.

Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand

closed. There shall be no order as to costs.

___________________________ SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA, CJ

_______________________ N. TUKARAMJI, J 09.12.2021 JSU