*THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY + Writ Petition Nos.25454 & 25480 of 2010 COMMON JUDGMENT: %06-09-2011 # D. Uma Maheshwar Rao & another ..petitioners And $ Eastern Power Distribution Company of A.P. Ltd. rep. by its Chairman & Managing Director, Visakhapatnam & others ..Respondents !Counsel for the petitioners : Sri M.V. Rama Rao, ^Counsel for respondents : Smt. Jyothi Eswar, S.C. < Gist: > Head Note: Citations: THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY Writ Petition Nos.25454 & 25480 of 2010 COMMON JUDGMENT: These two writ petitions are similar to each other, and the respondents are also common. Hence, they are disposed of, through a common judgment. The petitioners are working as Upper Division Clerks in the Eastern Power Distribution Company of A.P. Ltd., the 1st respondent herein. Disciplinary proceedings were initiated, way back in the year 2003, against as many as 46 employees of the 1st respondent, including the petitioners herein, alleging certain acts of misappropriation, lack of proper supervision, etc. The Director (HRD), the 2nd respondent herein passed separate orders, dated 19-01-2010 against the petitioners and imposed the punishment of reduction of pay to the minimum of time scale for two years, postponement of two future increments, etc. The petitioners availed the remedy of appeal before the Chairman and Managing Director of the Company, the 1st respondent herein. The appeals were rejected through separate orders dated 27-07-2010. Hence, these two writ petitions. The petitioners contend that there are several defects in the disciplinary proceedings, and that the punishment imposed against them cannot be sustained in law. It is stated that the order was passed by the 2nd respondent, without applying his mind, and it cannot be sustained. Other grounds were also urged. On behalf of the respondents, detailed counter-affidavits are filed. It is stated that the petitioners obstructed the proceedings at every stage, and the punishment was imposed against them, strictly in accordance with law. It is also stated that the acts of misappropriation alleged against the petitioners were proved, and the disciplinary authority as well as the appellate authority have considered the matter, objectively. Heard Sri M.V. Rama Rao, learned counsel for the petitioners and Smt. Jyothi Eswar, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. The disciplinary proceedings were initiated against quite large number of persons, way back in the year 2003. On one pretext or the other, the proceedings were delayed. Ultimately, the orders of punishment were passed. The principal contention urged on behalf of the petitioners is that the very initiation of disciplinary proceedings is defective, inasmuch as the charge-sheet was issued by the enquiry officer. Two other grounds that the disciplinary authority did not furnish any reasons, in support of its conclusion, except stating that the explanation offered by the petitioners is not satisfactory and that the punishment of reduction of pay to the minimum of time scale is not provided for, under the A.P.S.E.B. Employees Discipline and Appeal Regulations (for short ‘the Regulations’) are also urged. The Eastern Power Distribution Company Limited, is an offshoot of the erstwhile A.P. State Electricity Board (for short ‘the Board’), as a result of reorganization. The Board framed the Regulations, prescribing the procedure to be followed in the disciplinary proceedings. They stipulate the punishments, that can be imposed, wherever an employee is found guilty of misconduct, and the manner in which, such punishments can be imposed. The same Regulations apply to the employees of the 1st respondent. It is the appointing authority, that can initiate proceedings against an employee for any acts of misconduct or indiscipline. Such proceedings commence with the issuance of a charge-sheet, or charge memo. In certain organizations, disciplinary authorities are also provided for, separately. Whenever a charge-sheet is issued, either by the appointing authority or the disciplinary authority, the employee would have an opportunity to submit explanation. In case the employee admits the allegations made against him, the concerned authority can straightaway impose the punishment. It is only when the allegations are denied by the employee, that the necessity to conduct departmental or disciplinary enquiry, and appointment of an enquiry officer, for that purpose, would arise. The function of an enquiry officer is to hear the version of the organization and the employee, and submit a report, recording his findings on the charges. In the instant case, the enquiry officer was appointed, even before any charges were framed against the petitioners, and they have submitted their explanations. In fact, the enquiry officer himself framed the charges. A Division Bench of this Court, of which, I happened to be a member, in Ch. Appala Reddy v. Eastern Power Distribution Company of A.P. Limited and others[1], held that such a course is impermissible in law. The said judgment squarely applies to the facts of the case. The second defect is that the 2nd respondent did not furnish any reasons, whatever, in support of his conclusions. An elaborate order, running into four closely typed pages was passed. Till the end of the order, it is only narration of facts and reproduction of contentions of the parties. The only portion of the order, that reflects the decision of the 3rd respondent, reads, “The undersigned, after careful examination of the reply submitted by Sri A.V. Rama Rao, UDC / ERO / Narsipatnam, has observed that the reply of the individual is not convincing. Hence, the undersigned has decided to award the following punishment on Sri A.V. Rama Rao, UDC/ ERO / Narsipatnam: i) Reducing the pay to the minimum of time scale for 2 (two) years. ii) The punishment shall operate to postpone 2 (two) future increments. iii) The punishment shall take effect from the date of issue of Final Orders. Besides treating the period of suspension as such”. The disciplinary authority is under obligation to furnish the reasons in support of his conclusion. It reflects non-application of mind, or non- furnishing of reasons. Thirdly, the Regulations do not provide for the punishment of reduction of pay to the minimum of time scale. As though that is not sufficient, the punishment of withholding of increments was imposed. For the foregoing reasons, the writ petitions are allowed, and the orders challenged therein are set aside. It is left open to the respondents to initiate disciplinary proceedings against the petitioners, in accordance with law. The petitioners shall be entitled to be paid their regular salary, without any reduction, from October, 2011 onwards. The punishment imposed against the petitioners was enforced, vis-à-vis the petitioner in W.P.No.25480 of 2010. The manner in which the amount withheld from his salary, would depend upon the outcome of the disciplinary proceedings, that may be initiated. The decision, whether or not to initiate disciplinary proceedings against the petitioners shall be taken, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, and if they are initiated, they shall be concluded within a period of four months thereafter. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________________ L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J. Dt.06-09-2011. Note: L.R copy to be marked. (B/O) KO [1] Writ Appeal No.491 of 2005, dt.13-04-2005.