Telangana High Court

Ch Somaiah, vs Telanganastate Northern Power ... on 21 April, 2025

Author: Nagesh Bheemapaka

Bench: Nagesh Bheemapaka

         HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA

             WRIT PETITION No. 32100 OF 2013

O R D E R:

In this Writ Petition, Memo dated 10.07.2013 and

consequential Appellate Authority Order dated 03.10.2013 is

under challenge.

2. Petitioner was appointed as a Lower Division Clerk

(LDC) on 12-05-1998 under B.P.Ms.No.36 dated 18-05-1997.

Subsequently, he was promoted as Upper Division Clerk (UDC)

in September 2008 and posted at the Electricity Revenue Office

(ERO), Kothagudem. While serving in this capacity, he was

issued show cause notice dated 06-03-2009 by the

Superintending Engineer proposing departmental action against

him based on certain lapses, which were outlined in the

preliminary report submitted by the Accounts Officer (Revenue)

dated 30-09-2008 and to award the punishment of stoppage of

three annual grade increments with cumulative effect. Petitioner

submitted reply, though not convincing, taking a lenient view,

the Superintending Engineer, who had issued show cause

notice, passed final order on 30-06-2009, imposing punishment

of stoppage of two increments with cumulative effect. While the

Appeal was pending, the Chief General Manager (Human

Resources & Development) [CGM(HRD)], set aside both the show

cause notice dated 06-03-2009 and the final order dated

30-06-2009 through proceedings dated 19-01-2010. However,

the CGM(HRD) ordered a de novo enquiry without assigning any

valid reason. According to petitioner, service conditions of the

employees in the establishment are governed by the Discipline

and Appeal Regulations, specifically Regulation 15, which

delineates the powers of the Appellate Authority. As per

Regulation 15(1)(i), the Appellate Authority has power to

consider whether punishment imposed is sustainable based on

established facts and whether the facts constitute sufficient

grounds for action. The Appellate Authority can also decide on

the adequacy or inadequacy of the imposed punishment under

Clause 15(c). Regulation 15(1)(ii) stipulates that in cases where

enhanced punishment is being considered under Clause (iv), (vi)

to (viii) of Regulation 5, an enquiry must be conducted under

Regulation 10. In the present case, the CGM (HRD), while

ordering a de novo enquiry, did not specify whether the intent

was to enhance the punishment under Regulation 5. Therefore,

the Appellate Authority exceeded its jurisdiction by appointing

the Senior Accounts Officer (P & GT) NPDCL as the Enquiry

Officer under Regulation 15, rendering the proceedings illegal

and void.

              Subsequently,     the    Chairman     and    Managing

Director    (CMD)   appointed    the   General     Manager    (Audit),

APNPDCL, Warangal, as the Enquiry Officer to conduct enquiry

under Regulation 10(2)(a) of the APSEB Employees' Discipline

and Appeal Regulations through letter dated 09-03-2010.

Petitioner, having served as LDC in the Town ERO, Khammam

from July 2004 to September 2008, was allocated

Manchukonda (Slab) Section during the period in question. His

primary responsibility as LDC was to maintain ledgers supplied

by Private Accounting Agencies and to note down the payable

amounts for consumers, who would then make payments

accordingly. Since the ledgers were printed, any question of

manipulation or alteration of records does not arise. It is stated,

for administrative reasons, the Assistant Accounts Officer (ERO)

issued the Memo dated 01-08-2008 directing petitioner to hand

over all records related to Manchukonda Section to ERO (Rural),

Khammam and to obtain records pertaining to slab services

from Konjerla and Chintakani Sections. Petitioner complied with

the memo and handed over all relevant records before being

promoted to UDC in September 2008 and subsequently

transferred to ERO Kothagudem.

While serving at ERO Kothagudem, petitioner was

charge-sheeted on 07-08-2010; charges primarily revolved

around the alleged unauthorized transfer of amounts from one

account to another. Petitioner submitted an effective

explanation denying the allegations and contended that he had

no authority to transfer amounts in ledgers unless specifically

approved by the Assistant Accounts Officer. He asserts that all

such transfers were made with the necessary approvals, and

copies were forwarded to the Private Accounting Agency for

necessary corrections. Therefore, the allegations were baseless

and devoid of merit. Furthermore, as per the memo dated 01-

08-2008, all records had already been handed over prior to

petitioner's promotion, making the subsequent enquiry against

him arbitrary and unjustified.

It is also stated, a formal enquiry was conducted by

the GM (Audit) in a perfunctory manner without affording

adequate opportunity to petitioner to defend himself. The

Enquiry Officer ultimately submitted a report concluding that

there was negligence on the part of petitioner. However, the

report itself established that the alleged book adjustments did

not result in any financial loss to NPDCL. Based on this report,

the CMD issued show cause notice dated 26-04-2011 proposing

to dismiss petitioner from service. Petitioner submitted a reply

on 25-05-2011, which was not considered favorably, and a final

order of dismissal was issued on 10-07-2013. Petitioner

therefore, filed Appeal on 16-08-2013 before the DISCOM

Board. The Board, through Memo dated 03-10-2013 dismissed

the Appeal.

The 1st respondent is an industrial establishment

as defined under Section 2(e) of the Industrial Establishment

Standing Orders Act, 1946. The Act mandates that an industrial

establishment must have certified Standing Orders governing

employee service conditions. Section 13(B) of the Act provides

exemptions if the rules and regulations are notified by the

Appropriate Government. However, under Section 79(c) of the

Electricity Supply Act, Rules and Regulations have been framed,

including Discipline and Appeal Regulations, but they have not

been notified as required under Section 13(B). Consequently,

these Regulations cannot be applied to the employees, including

the Petitioner. The Respondents were bound to follow the

provisions of the Industrial Employment Standing Orders Act,

1946. Hence, the entire disciplinary process, including the

dismissal and appellate orders, is void ab initio and must be set

aside. The Petitioner relies on the Division Bench ruling in W.A.

Nos. 570 of 2012, 182, 323, 324, 371, and 937 of 2012 dated

08-08-2013.

3. The 2nd respondent filed counter-affidavit stating

that as per Regulation (3), every employee is required to execute

their duties with sincerity, honesty, and integrity. Failure to do

so results in punishable provisions in proportion to the degree

of the infraction, as mandated under Regulation (5) of the said

Discipline and Appeal Regulations.

It is stated, based on the preliminary report from

the Accounts Officer (Revenue)/CO Khammam which

highlighted irregularities at Town/ERO Khammam, implicating

petitioner, the 2nd respondent issued Memo dated 06.03.2009,

proposing penalty of stoppage of three annual grade increments

with cumulative effect, based on two key charges:

1. The petitioner put up NAL J.E.s from 08/2007 to 08/2008 without following departmental procedures such as consumer representations and original/duplicate PRs paid by consumers, effecting transfer of credits between services without appropriate ledger entries.

2. The petitioner inserted 45 service numbers into NAL J.E.s from 09/2007 to 08/2008 after approval of put notes,

transferring credits amounting to Rs. 51,771 across services without sufficient documentation.

Though petitioner's explanation is not satisfactory,

the 3rd respondent, taking a lenient view, reduced the penalty to

stoppage of two annual grade increments, as finalized in Memo

dated 30.06.2009. The Appeal was rejected via Memo dated

03.10.2013. The procedural correctness of the disciplinary

action was upheld as per departmental regulations, reinforcing

the respondents' position.

It is also stated, due to the gravity of charges and

the involvement of a Senior Accounts Officer (SAO), the

SE/Op/Khammam lacked the competency to initiate

disciplinary action against the SAO under Regulation 7 of the

Discipline and Appeal Regulations, as per Proceedings dated

09.03.2010, and Proceedings dated 19.01.2010. Consequently,

the 1st respondent appointed the General Manager

(Audit)/APNPDCL/Warangal as the Enquiry Officer to conduct a

fresh departmental enquiry, superseding previous proceedings.

It is to be noted that this Court in Writ Petition No.20838 of

2005, ruled that a departmental enquiry is necessary to impose

stoppage of increments with cumulative effect, classifying it as a

major penalty. The Enquiry Officer, duly observing the

principles of natural justice, conducted the departmental

enquiry and concluded that multiple charges against petitioner

were substantiated. Based on the findings, the 1st respondent,

issued show cause notice dated 26.04.2011. Upon reviewing the

petitioner's response, final dismissal order was issued via Memo

dated 10.07.2013. It is contended that petitioner's attempt to

create self-serving interpretations of legal principles contradicts

established departmental regulations and statutory provisions,

hence, the Writ Petition is liable to be dismissed.

4. Learned counsel for petitioner Sri S. Ravindranath

submits that none of the Enquiry Officers have stated that

NPDCLs amount have been misappropriated, therefore, the

punishment of dismissal is illegal. It is submitted that the

charges against petitioner revolved around the transfer of

amounts from one service connection to the other, as a

rectification measures, on account of mistakes committed by

the field staff in assigning wrong distribution code while

releasing the supply and necessary documentary evidence was

produced by petitioner to establish that rectification measures

were taken based on the field reports.

According to learned counsel, since the Appointing

Authority who is also the disciplinary authority i.e.

Superintending Engineer has already imposed the punishment

against him, based on the enquiry report of the Sr. Accounts

officer / CO/Khammam, ordering for de novo enquiry by the

Chairman & Managing Director is illegal. The Enquiry Officer

ought to have verified the relevant records and ought to have

examined the consumers concerned, to ascertain the facts.

5. Sri Zakir Ali Danish, learned Standing Counsel

submits that the impugned order does not require any

interference, hence, the Writ Petition is liable to be dismissed.

6. Having considered the respective submissions and

perused the record, at the outset, it may be noted that

respondent-Department noticed several irregularities relating to

maintenance of Ledger entries and transfer of Service

Connections without verification and authorization, said to have

occurred in AAO/ERO/Town/Khammam during 2004 - 2007.

The Department suffered huge financial loss due to the alleged

negligence of 14 of its employees who worked at the relevant

time, and the Disciplinary Authority issued Charge Memos to

them, including petitioner and punishment was imposed. On

appeal, the Appellate Authority, taking a view that the

punishment imposed was not commensurate with the severity of

irregularities, ordered for an enquiry in each case individually.

The Enquiry Officer held delinquent officials guilty of the

charges and punishments of varying magnitude were imposed

in each case. Though it is contended by petitioner that

similarly-situated employees were given lesser punishments and

it is only he who was discriminated by imposing the punishment

of dismissal from service, it is to be prima facie noted that the

very charges against petitioner are that he put up Non-

Accountable Ledgers Journal Entries (NAL JEs) without

consumer representation and without permanent receipts (PRs),

and effected transfer of credits from one service to another

service without recording the entries, thereby financial loss to

the tune of Rs.1,37,321/- was incurred by the Department. The

charges also show that he posted 52 services without Journal

Entries as required under due procedure, and that he had

manipulatively inserted 45 number of services in the middle of

NAL JEs from Sep 2007 to Aug 2008 after the approval of put

up notes, and thereafter, transferred the credits to the tune of

Rs.51,771 from one service to another without proofs.

7. It is not the case of petitioner that he was dismissed

from service straightaway alleging some charges, without proper

enquiry and opportunity to represent his case. On the contrary,

written explanation, oral evidence and also the departmental

records were considered by the Enquiry Officer. The very

irregularities relate to non-existence of supporting documents

like consumer applications, original permanent receipts and

related office records which are essential documents for

performing/executing the work of transfer of connections,

maintenance of Ledgers, etcetera, which have come under

scrutiny. Further, the explanation submitted by petitioner (at

material page No.64 of the writ petition) does not show whether

the changes affected in service connections were on the specific

representations made by the consumers, and if the action was

taken on the information of some Field Officers, whether the

same has the approval of the competent authority. It is the

specific contention of respondent Department that 45 service

connections were inserted in the middle of NAL Journal Entry

registers, after the existing entries have been approved, which

goes to show that records have been illegally manipulated.

Further, nothing is placed on record to show the authority of

petitioner to unilaterally rectify any so-called alleged wrong

declaration of Distributions/Services furnished by the Field

Officers in Monthly Returns without prior approval of the

authority.

8. The Chairman & Managing Director, who is at the

helm of the organization, cannot be said to be not competent to

order an enquiry into an irregularity committed in the

Department, and therefore, his competence in ordering enquiry

by nominating the General Manager (Audit) as Enquiry Officer

cannot be said to be illegal. Furthermore, considering the

gravity of irregularities, the competent authority has ordered

enquiry into each case individually, whereafter each case was

individually considered by the Enquiry Officer and individual

depositions were obtained, records were taken into

consideration, and the role and responsibility and the

negligence committed by each of the delinquent officials were

considered while imposing individual punishments in each case.

9. At this juncture, it is relevant to refer to the

judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Rajasthan

v. Bhupendra Singh 1, wherein it was held as follows:

" 23. The scope of examination and interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India (hereinafter referred to as the 'Constitution') in a case of the present nature, is no longer res integra. In State of Andhra Pradesh v S Sree Rama Rao, AIR 1963 SC 1723, a 3- Judge Bench stated:

2024 INSC 592 (Civil Appeal Nos.8546-8549 of 2024)

"7. ... The High Court is not constituted in a proceeding under Article 226 of the Constitution a Court of appeal over the decision of the authorities holding a departmental enquiry against a public servant: it is concerned to determine whether the enquiry is held by an authority competent in that behalf, and according to the procedure prescribed in that behalf, and whether the rules of natural justice are not violated. Where there is some evidence, which the authority entrusted with the duty to hold the enquiry has accepted and which evidence may reasonably support the conclusion that the delinquent officer is guilty of the charge, it is not the function of the High Court in apetition for a writ under Article 226 to review the evidence and to arrive at an independent finding on the evidence. The High Court may undoubtedly interfere where the departmental authorities have held the proceedings against the delinquent in a manner inconsistent with the rules of natural justice or in violation of the statutory rules prescribing the mode of enquiry or where the authorities have disabled themselves from reaching a fair decision by some considerations extraneous to the evidence and the merits of the case or by allowing themselves to be influenced by irrelevant considerations or where the conclusion on the very face of it is so wholly arbitrary and capricious that no reasonable person could ever have arrived at that conclusion, or on similar grounds. But the departmental authorities are, if the enquiry is otherwise properly held, the sole judges of facts and if there be some legal evidence on which their findings can be based, the adequacy or reliability of that evidence is not a matter which can be permitted to be

canvassed before the High Court in a proceeding for a writ under Article 226 of the Constitution."

29. Evidently, while reappraisal of facts and evidence is not impermissible by the High Court, the infirmity in the underlying order has to be greater than ordinary. It is not the respondent's case that due to omissions by the appellants in substantive and/or procedural compliances, prejudice has ensued to him. Let us examine the aspect independently too. The facts reveal that an earlier removal order was quashed, and a copy of the Enquiry Report alongwith the RPSC's opinion was supplied to the respondent. The respondent, thereafter, received an opportunity to submit a written representation, which he 26 availed of. Further, he was afforded an opportunity of hearing as well. In this view, we are unable to find any violation of the principles of natural justice.

31. It is well-settled that if the Disciplinary Authority accepts findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer and proceeds to impose punishment basis the same, no elaborate reasons are required, as explained by 27 three learned Judges of this Court vide Boloram Bordoloi v LakhimiGaolia Bank, (2021) 3 SCC 806:

'11. ... Further, it is well settled that if the disciplinary authority accepts the findings recorded by the enquiry officer and passes an order, no detailed reasons are required to be recorded in the order imposing punishment. The punishment is imposed based on the findings recorded in the enquiry report, as such, no further elaborate reasons are required to be given by the disciplinary authority. ...'

32. The Removal Order makes it clear that the Disciplinary Authority has considered the whole material before it and was satisfied to impose punishment on the respondent."

10. Having considered the respective submissions and

perused the record, and also the judgments relied on by the

respective counsel, this Court is of the view that there is no

procedural irregularity in ordering the enquiry or violation of

principles of natural justice or discriminatory treatment meted

out to the petitioner while imposing the impugned punishment

after the enquiry proceedings. In that view of the matter, the

writ petition is liable to be dismissed.

11. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs.

12. Miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, shall stand

closed.

-------------------------------------