IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 5967 of 2007 Between: N.Venkateswarlu S/o.late Narayana O/o. A.P. Central Power Distribution Company Ltd., R/o.H.No.10-77, Gayathri Nagar, Vaishalinagar (PO) Karmanghat, Hyderabad -79. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Superintending Engineer (Operations) A.P. Central Power Distribution Co. Ltd., Ranga Reddy (South) Budha Bhavan, Secunderabad. 2 Divisional Engineer, Electrical Operations A.P. Central Power Distribution Co. Ltd., Saroornagar Division, Saroornagar, R.R. District. 3 Divisional Engineer, Electrical Operations A.P. Central Power Distribution Co. Ltd., Rajendra Nagar, Division, Ranjendranagar RR District. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Aﬃdavit ﬁled herein the High Court will be pleased to issue an appropriate writ or order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to permit the petitioner to report to duties at a place where there can be proof of attending to duties and pay salary regularly from month to month treating the petitioner as on duty from 10.11.2006 onwards and pass such other order or orders. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.C.S.K.V.RAMANAMURTHY Counsel for the Respondents: MR.P.R.BALARAMI REDDY The Court made the following : ORDER: The petitioner is employed as Sub-Engineer in the A.P. Central Power Distribution Company Limited. He stated that though his substantive posting is in the office of the third respondent, he is working on deputation with the second respondent. It is stated that he applied for leave for the period from 18.10.2006 to 09.11.2006 and when he attended the oﬃce of the second rspondent on 10.11.2006 he was not permitted to resume duty. The writ petition is ﬁled with a prayer to permit the petitioner to attend the duty and for a direction to the respondents to pay the salary with effect from 10.11.2006. The respondents ﬁled a counter-aﬃdavit stating, inter alia, that the petitioner remained absent unauthorisedly from 01.09.2005 onwards. It is stated that leave application was only for a limited period, without explaining the unauthorized absence for the earlier spell and necessary orders in this regard have already been issued. They further plead that the disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the petitioner and 2nd show cause notice was already issued. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned standing counsel for the respondents. While the petitioner states that he was not permitted to join the duty on 10.11.2006, the respondents plead that the petitioner remained unauthorisedly absent from 01.09.2005 onwards. As the things stand thus, the disciplinary proceedings have already been initiated against the petitioner, in relation to unauthorized absence from 01.09.2005 onwards, and even 2nd show cause notice was issued on 28.01.2008 proposing the punishment of removal from service. That is the subject matter of W.P.No.2361 of 2008. Even assuming that the petitioner was absent unauthorisedly for any period and disciplinary proceedings were initiated in relation thereto, the respondents cannot refuse to permit him to assume duty. It is only when an employee is placed under suspension that he cannot be permitted to discharge duties. Admittedly, no order of suspension pending enquiry was passed against the petitioner. He cannot be relegated to a worse position than an employee who is placed under suspension. Hence, the Writ Petition is disposed of, directing that the respondents shall pay subsistence allowance to the petitioner with eﬀect from 01.04.2008, till the conclusion of the disciplinary proceedings. The subsistence allowance from 01.04.2008 to 30.08.2008 shall be paid to the petitioner through a cheque on 01.09.2008 by handing over the cheque to the learned counsel for the petitioner. The manner in which the period earlier thereto shall be subject to the out come of the disciplinary proceedings. There shall be no order as to costs. ____________________ Dt.28.08.2008 L.NARASIMHA REDDY, J GJ