HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA WRIT PETITION No. 2668 OF 2006 DATED 11TH NOVEMBER, 2010. BETWEEN M.A. Azeem Saberi …..Petitioner and APTRANSCO, rep. By its Chairman & Managing Director, Vidyuthsoudha, Hyderabad and ors … Respondents. HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA WRIT PETITION No. 2668 of 2006 ORDER: The petitioner while working as Senior Accounts Oﬃcer, A.P. TRANSCO, Vidyuth Soudha, Hyderabad, was issued with a Memo No. CGM(HRD) & TRG/DE/DC/105/NA/2004-1, dated 27.5.2004 stating that during the investigation by Vigilance Wing of AP TRANSCO, it was found that the petitioner was responsible for the delay in payment for APL works. On the basis of preliminary enquiry, the second respondent issued the aforesaid charge memo dated 27.5.2004, directing him to explain the reasons for delay in payment for the APL works. The charges framed against the petitioner read as follows: 1. It is found that even though funds are released for payment to the Contractors on or before 31.12.2003, they were not paid even after a week i.e. till 7.1.2004. 2. A total of 39 bills were paid during the month of December, 2003, in respect of contractors M/s. Manchukonda Prakasam, M/s. Dhanalakshmi Engineering, M/s. Nagarjuna Construction Co., M/s. Vishal Transformers Ltd., M/s. Precision Power Engineering with a delay of one to two weeks. 3. The payments are found to be delayed on the plea of checking the bills. The petitioner submitted his explanation- dated 16.6.2004. Being not satisﬁed with the explanation of the petitioner, the second respondent issued show cause notice dated 17.9.2004 calling explanation from the petitioner as to why punishment of stoppage of one increment without cumulative eﬀect shall not be imposed. The petitioner submitted his explanation on 1.10.2004. The third respondent, vide memo dated 21.4.2005 awarded punishment of stoppage of one increment without cumulative eﬀect. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner preferred appeal on 25.5.2005 and the same was dismissed by order dated 1.7.2005 by the second respondent. Dissatisﬁed with the dismissal of the appeal, the petitioner ﬁled review petition, which also ended in dismissal vide order dated 13.10.2005. Hence this Writ Petition. It is submitted by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the primary authority-third respondent has not aﬀorded opportunity of personal hearing before imposing punishment vide order dated 21.4.2005. It is further submitted that even the second respondent while disposing of the appeal and review petition ﬁled by the petitioner, has not provided opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that even the primary, appellate and review authorities have not considered all the contentions of the petitioner in proper perspective. She submitted that the delay of writing cheques for seven days was framed without verifying whether authorized signatory for signing cheques is available in the oﬃce or not, and whether the Chief Engineer has issued instructions for writing cheques, who was on camp upto 4.1.2004 and attended the oﬃce only on 5.1.2004. The learned Counsel further submitted that the fact of release of funds has been brought to the notice of the Chief Engineer on 5.1.2004 and against on 6.1.2004, but, no instructions were issued. It is only on 7.1.2004 the Chief Engineering has given instructions for writing cheques, which have been complied without delay on 7.1.2004 itself. It is the grievance of the petitioner that though the above facts were conﬁrmed in the oral enquiry conducted on 22.8.2005 with the Chief Engineer, but neither the primary nor appellate nor revisional authorities, have taken into consideration the aforesaid findings of the enquiry officer. A counter aﬃdavit is ﬁled on behalf of the respondents, stating that inasmuch as the explanations submitted by the petitioner were found unsatisfactory, the impugned orders came to be passed based on the ﬁndings recorded by the enquiry oﬃcer. It is stated in the counter aﬃdavit that although the cheques were prepared as per the list on 7.1.2004, the payments were not made till 28.4.2004 and therefore, the petitioner is responsible for the delay in payment. The punishment imposed against the petitioner is in accordance with the procedure prescribed under Regulations 5 & 10 of the APSEB Employees Discipline and Appeal Regulations and hence, there are no grounds to interfere with the Writ Petition and the same may be dismissed. Having heard the learned Counsel on either side, I am of the considered opinion that there is no necessity to go into the merits of the case. One of the main contentions of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that no personal hearing was aﬀorded at the appellate and review stages. It is time and again held by this Court and Apex Court that principles of natural justice should normally be followed and this requires issuance of show cause notice and right to be heard. However, these principles are not rigid principles, which are to be applied blindly. Further, it is to be seen that the principles of natural justice have two ingredients—ﬁrstly, the person likely to be adversely aﬀected by the action of the authorities should be given notice to show cause or/and granted reasonable opportunity of being heard in consonance with the maxim audi alterm partem, secondly, the order so passed by the authorities should give reason for arriving at any conclusion showing proper application of mind. Violation of either of these principles normally would render an order particularly quasi-judicial in nature, invalid. Violation of principles of natural justice is violation of basic rule of law and would invite judicial chasticism. However, this rule is not without exception. From a reading of the order passed by the primary authority-third respondent, imposing the punishment against the petitioner, which was conﬁrmed by the appellate authority-second respondent, and further by the revisional authority, it reveals that no opportunity of personal hearing was aﬀorded to the petitioner. Further, the appellate and review authority has also not issued prior notice while disposing of the appeal and review petition ﬁled by the petitioner. The review authority also does not disclose any reason for arriving at the conclusion, which was arrived at by him earlier, which shows there is no proper application of mind. For the foregoing discussion, the orders dated 21.4.2005, 01.07.2005 and 13.10.2005 passed by the primary, appellate and review authorities respectively, are liable to be set aside and accordingly they are set aside and the matter is remanded back to the primary authority-third respondent, who shall dispose of the matter afresh, on merits, after aﬀording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. The petitioner is at liberty to raise all contentions as available to him, which shall be considered by the primary authority. The interim order passed by this Court on 14.02.2006, which was made absolute by order dated 27.9.2007 shall continue till the disposal of the matter by the primary authority. The Writ Petition is allowed accordingly, There shall be no order as to costs. ------------------------------------------ JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA DATED 11T H NOVEMBER, 2010. Msnro