Central Power Distribution ... vs K.J.P. Prabhudas
2021 Latest Caselaw 3659 Tel

  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.

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

2005(3) ALT 632 (D.B.)