Telangana High Court

S. Limbadri vs The Northern Power Distribution ... on 14 May, 2025

          THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE PULLA KARTHIK

                   WRIT PETITION No.39 of 2021
ORDER:

Seeking to set aside the Enquiry Report dated 23.08.2018 of

respondent No.3, Memo dated 20.04.2019 of respondent No.1

imposing the punishment of compulsory retirement and the

modified punishment imposed by respondent No.2 vide Memo

dated 27.01.2020, the present Writ Petition is filed.

2) Brief facts of the case are that while the petitioner was

working as Additional Assistant Engineer, a charge sheet vide

Memo No.DEE(Enq.II) NPDCL/Wgl./F.No.2283, D.No.10/18, dated

07.02.2018, framing four charges and calling for his explanation,

was issued by respondent No.3, who is an incompetent authority to

do so. However, the petitioner has submitted a detailed

explanation on 27.06.2018 denying all the charges and requesting

to absolve him from the charges. Respondent No.3 having not

satisfied with the said explanation has initiated an oral enquiry

vide proceedings dated 26.07.2018, conducted enquiry and also

submitted his enquiry report vide letter No.DEE (Enq.II)

NPDCL/Wgl./F.No. 2283, D.No.76/18, dated 23.08.2018, holding

that the four charges levelled against the petitioner are proved.

Basing on the said Enquiry Report, respondent No.1 has issued a

show cause notice dated 06.09.2018, duly enclosing a copy of

-2- PK, J wp_39_2021

enquiry report, proposing to impose the major punishment in

terms of Regulation 5 of APSEB Discipline & Appeal Regulations (in

short 'Regulations'), however without specifying as to which major

punishment was sought to be imposed, and the same is contrary to

Regulation 10 of the Regulations. To the said show cause notice

dated 06.09.2018, petitioner has submitted a detailed explanation

on 26.11.2018 along with lists to prove his innocence and to

substantiate his contentions that the findings of the Enquiry

Officer are not correct. However, without considering the same in

proper perspective, respondent No.1 has imposed the punishment

of compulsory retirement from service vide proceedings dated

20.04.2019. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner has filed an

appeal before respondent No.2, who passed the impugned modified

order dated 27.01.2020. Questioning the same, the petitioner has

filed the present Writ Petition.

3) Heard Sri P.V. Ramana, learned senior counsel, representing

Sri Maddela Ravinder, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Sri

Mir Aqueel Ali, learned Standing Counsel, for the respondents.

4) Learned senior counsel has contended that respondent No.2

while deciding the appeal filed by the petitioner instead of reducing

the punishment imposed on the petitioner has enhanced the

punishment in the form of passing modified order without issuing

-3- PK, J wp_39_2021

any notice in the appeal. Therefore, the modified order dated

27.01.2020 is contrary to APSEB Regulations, more particularly

Regulation 15 thereof, and also violative of principles of natural

justice. Learned senior counsel has further submitted that the

findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer are contrary to the

material available on record and are based on surmises and

conjectures. Therefore, respondent No.2 ought to have imposed

any minor penalty by taking into consideration 19 years of service

of the petitioner as Additional Assistant Engineer in the respondent

Corporation. Learned senior counsel has strenuously contended

that the remedy should not be worse than the problem and

respondent No.2 has erred in imposing the enhanced punishment

and if respondent No.2 was not inclined to reduce the punishment

imposed on the petitioner, he ought to have simply dismissed the

appeal or else permitted the petitioner to withdraw the appeal. As

such, respondent No.2 is not justified in imposing the enhanced

punishment without issuing any notice. Hence, it is prayed to

allow the Writ Petition. Reliance has been placed on:

1) Managing Director, ECIL, Hyderabad v. B.Karunakar 1; and

2) Oryx Fisheries Private Limited v. Union of India 2.





    (1993) 4 SCC 727

    (2010) 13 SCC 427
                                   -4-                               PK, J
                                                              wp_39_2021




5)    Per contra, the learned Standing Counsel has contended that

based on two reports submitted by the Superintending Engineer

(OP), Nizamabad, against the petitioner regarding acceptance of

bribe by the petitioner for executing works unauthorizedly and

unauthorized shifting of DTR etc, disciplinary action was initiated

against the petitioner by appointing Deputy Engineer as an

Enquiry Officer vide proceedings dated 30.01.2018 under

Regulation 10(2)(a) of the Regulations to conduct departmental

enquiry into the grave lapses notices against the petitioner, and a

charge memo dated 07.02.2018 was issued to the petitioner

framing four charges, for which the petitioner has submitted his

explanation. As the said explanation was not convincing, an

enquiry was conducted by the Enquiry Officer strictly in

accordance with Regulations and he submitted his report holding

that all the four charges were proved. Therefore, basing on the

Enquiry Report dated 23.08.2018, respondent No.1 being the

Disciplinary Authority has imposed the punishment of compulsory

retirement as the said authority deemed it proportionate for the

proven charges. However, on appeal, though the Appellate

Authority has not accepted the contention of the petitioner, but

duly considering the hardship of the petitioner, respondent No.2

has modified the punishment imposed on the petitioner by

respondent No.1 and passed the modified order dated 27.01.2020

-5- PK, J wp_39_2021

ordering reinstatement of the petitioner with certain modifications.

Accordingly, the petitioner was reinstated into service on

27.01.2020 and therefore retired from service on 31.01.2022.

Hence, there are no merits in the writ petition and the same may

be dismissed. Reliance has been placed on the unreported

judgment of the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in Writ

Appeal No.1012 of 2015, dated 15.07.2016.

6) This Court has taken note of the submissions made by

respective counsel and perused the material on record.

7) As can be seen from the record, while the petitioner was

working as Additional Executive Engineer, basing on two reports

submitted by the Superintending Engineer, Nizamabad,

respondent No.1 has appointed respondent No.3 as an Enquiry

Officer to enquire into the lapses committed by the petitioner.

Thereafter, respondent No.3 has issued the charge sheet dated

07.02.2018 against the petitioner levelling the following four

charges:

1) It is alleged that, Sri S.Limbadri, Ex-AAE/Op/Bheemgal (R) section of Armoor Division in Nizamabad circle had demanded a sum of Rs.40,000/- as bribe and accepted Rs.20,000/- from the prospective consumer named Sri Lambani Sarman a resident of Vachya Thanda of Mendora village, in the last week of March, 2017 for releasing their 5 Nos. agricultural service connections duly providing the transformer and connected lines, which is against the

-6- PK, J wp_39_2021

departmental rules. And after accepting the said amount, the Addl.

Asst. Engineer had issued 10 Nos. poles to the above consumer from 33/11 KV SS Gongoppula on 06.11.2017 without obtaining the work order against the estimate sanctioned on 11.08.2017

Thus, his action tarnished the image of the department in the eyes of the consumers.

2) It is alleged that, Sri S.Limbadri, Ex-AAE/Op/Bheemgal (R) section had issued 1 No. 25 KVA old DTR during July, 2017 and 2 Nos. poles on 06.11.2017 to a prospective consumer named Sri Lambani Ramesh, resident of Vachya Tahnda of Mendora village without obtaining the work order against the estimate sanctioned on 11.08.2017, which is against the departmental rules. The said Addl. Asst. Engineer had charged the said DTR on 15.11.2017 by erecting the 11 KV and LT HG fuse sets purchased by the consumer and then extended the supply to the bore wells of the consumer with the help of service wire, without erecting the required LT line.

Thus, he neglected his legitimate duties.

3) It is alleged that, Sri S.Limbadri, Ex-AAE/Op/Bheemgal (R) section had drawn the 63 KVA DTR on 16.01.2017 against the sanctioned estimate to give the overload relief to 100 KVA DTR on SS-VIII at Pallikonda but the work was not taken-up even after a lapse of more than 10 months, knowingly that the existing 100 KVA DTR got overloaded and utilized it somewhere else unauthorizedly. Further, the said Addl. Asst. Engineer had allowed the farmers of Pallikonda (V) who were availing the supply to their borewells from the said overloaded 100 KVA DTR at Pallikonda to shift the 63 KVA DTR pertaining to PWS, Devakkapeta (V) to the location of 100 KVA DTR, on 16.11.2017, unauthorizedly.

Thus, he neglected his legitimate duties, suffered the farmers a lot, mis-utilized the departmental materials and tarnished the image of the department in the eyes of the consumers.

                                      -7-                                    PK, J
                                                                      wp_39_2021




      4)      It is alleged that, Sri S.Limbadri, Ex-AAE/Op/Bheemgal (R)

section had not discharged his legitimate duties in respect of certain works listed below. The Divisional Engineer/Operation/ Armoor has issued certain memos calling for the explanation of the said Addl. Asst. Engineer against those works. But, the Addl. Asst. Engineer had not submitted his explanation to the memos and shown gross negligence in doing so, despite receiving the reminders even after lapse of a few months over & above the stipulated period, which shows his carelessness attitude in obeying the instructions of higher authorities, which is against the departmental rules."

8) To the above charges, petitioner has submitted his

explanation on 27.06.2018. However, as the explanation

submitted by the petitioner was not convincing, respondent No.3

has proceeded with the enquiry in accordance with the Regulations

and submitted his Enquiry Report dated 23.08.2018 to respondent

No.1. Basing on the said Enquiry Report, after issuing notice to

the petitioner and considering his representation, respondent No.1

has imposed the punishment of Compulsory Retirement upon the

petitioner, vide order dated 20.04.2019. On appeal made by the

petitioner, respondent No.2 vide order dated 27.01.2020 has

modified the punishment as under:

(i) Reversion as Sub-Engineer for a period of Two (2) years duly fixing his pay at the maximum of time scale of Sub-Engineer cadre.

(ii) During the period of punishment he is not eligible to earn any increments.

                                           -8-                                    PK, J
                                                                           wp_39_2021




       (iii)    The period from the date of his relief on compulsory

retirement to date of his joining as Sub-Engineer shall be treated as 'Dies-Non'.

9) In pursuance to the said modified order, dated 27.01.2020,

the petitioner was reinstated into service on the same day i.e. on

30.01.2020 and on 31.01.2022 he retired from service on attaining

the age of superannuation.

10) The main ground urged by the petitioner is that respondent

No.3, who was appointed as Enquiry Officer has issued the Charge

sheet dated 07.02.2018 without any competency.

11) In this context, it is pertinent to state that while dealing with

similar issue viz., Whether the enquiry officer could have framed

the charges instead of the disciplinary authority or the same

amounted to a serious procedural illegality tainting the disciplinary

proceedings?, the Division Bench of this Court in Writ Appeal

No.1012 of 2015, dated 15.07.2016, has held as under:

"... it may be noticed that the procedure to be followed in disciplinary proceedings by the appellant organization is governed by the A.P.S.E.B. Employees Discipline and Appeal Regulations. Regulation 10 deals with the procedure for imposing penalties and Clause 2(a) thereof states that in every case where it is proposed to impose on a member of a service any of the penalties specified in items (iv), (vi), (vii) in Regulation 5, the authority competent to impose the penalty shall appoint an Enquiry Officer, who shall be superior in rank to the person on whom it is proposed to impose the penalty, or shall itself hold an enquiry either suo motu or on a direction from a higher authority. In every such case, the

-9- PK, J wp_39_2021

grounds on which it is proposed to take action shall be reduced to the form of definite charge or charges, which shall be communicated to the person charged, together with a statement of the allegations on which each charge is based on any other circumstance which is proposed to be taken into consideration while passing orders in the case. Dismissal from service is the punishment specified under Regulation 5 (viii).

The aforesaid provision does not spell out in clear terms as to who should frame the charge(s). The language therein appears to give discretion to the disciplinary authority to either frame the charge(s) or delegate the function to the enquiry officer, in the event such enquiry is not being held by the disciplinary authority itself............................

................. Significantly, the learned Judge, who presided over the Division Bench which decided this case, also presided over the Larger bench of five Judges in K.Swarna Kumar v. Government of Andhra Pradesh [2006 (2) ALD 585 (LB)]. Therein, it was held, upon construction of Rule 20(3) of the Andhra Pradesh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1991, that the disciplinary authority may either draw up the articles of charge or cause them to be drawn up and that framing of charges by the enquiry officer would not vitiate the disciplinary proceedings. The Larger Bench also upheld the applicability of the prejudice doctrine in the context of disciplinary proceedings held in violation of the principles of natural justice or the rules."

12) From the above, it is clear that framing of charges by the

Enquiry Officer would not vitiate the entire disciplinary

proceedings. In view of the said proposition of law, this Court does

not find force in the contention of the petitioner that the Enquiry

Officer had no competency to issue the charge memo.

13) That apart, the petitioner had accepted the modified

punishment order dated 27.01.2020 passed by respondent No.2,

- 10 - PK, J wp_39_2021

joined the service on 30.01.2020 and thereafter questioned the

said order dated 27.01.2020 and filed the present writ petition

before this Court on 31.12.2020 i.e. after a lapse of 11 months.

This Court is of the view that the petitioner having accepted the