IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 26302 of 2007 Between: Md.Basheeruddin S/o.Md. Musthafa O/o. Addl. Assistant Engineer, C.P.D.C.L. Operation Section, Chityal, Nalgonda District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Central Power Distribution Company of A.P.Ltd., Rep. by its Chairman & Managing Director, Red Hills, Hyderabad. 2 Central Power Distribution Company of A.P.Ltd., Rep. by its Divisional Electrical Engineer, Operation, Bhongir, Nalgonda 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 may be pleased to issue a writ in the nature of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ order or direction by calling for the records relating to the proceedings of the 1st respondent bearing Memo No. GM(Per)/AS(Per)/PO(DC-II)/153-C4/05-15 dt.24-7-2007 and set aside the same by declaring it as illegal, arbitrary unconstitutional and without jurisdiction and consequently direct the respondents to release the increments to the petitioner, with all consequential and attendant benefits, in the interest of justice and to pass such other order or orders. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.B.A.PRAKASH REDDY Counsel for the Respondents.: P.R.BALARAMI REDDY(SC FOR AP TRANSCO) The Court made the following : ORDER: The petitioner joined as Helper in erstwhile A.P.S.E.B. in the year 1994 and subsequently promoted to the post of Assistant Lineman. The petitioner is presently working as Assistant Lineman under the control of the respondents. Departmental proceedings have been initiated against him for certain lapses with regard to the conversion of agricultural service connections into commercial. Sri M. Rama Narasimhulu, District and Sessions Judge (Retired) was appointed as Enquiry Officer. The Enquiry Officer found the petitioner not guilty of the charges leveled against him. The first respondent differed with the findings of the Enquiry Officer and issued show-cause notice to the petitioner proposing the punishment of reversion to the lower cadre i.e. Junior Lineman. Subsequently, the first respondent passed final order imposing punishment of stoppage of three annual grade increments with cumulative effect against the petitioner. Assailing the said order, the petitioner has filed this writ petition. 2. Rule Nisi came to be issued on 10.12.2007. The respondents entered appearance and filed counter-affidavit. U.Balaswamy, Divisional Electrical Engineer, Operation, Bhongir, Nalgonda District, has sworn to the counter-affidavit. It is stated in the counter-affidavit that the Chairman and Managing Director being the head of Central Power Distribution Company of A.P. Limited is the competent authority to appoint an enquiry officer though the 2nd respondent is the disciplinary authority and therefore, there is no illegality in appointing the enquiry officer. It is further stated in the counter-affidavit that after receipt of the conclusions of the Concurrence Committee only the first respondent imposed the punishment of stoppage of three annual grade increments with cumulative effect against the petitioner and that there is no illegality or irregularity in imposing the punishment against the petitioner. 3. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the 1st respondent while issuing show-cause notice has not assigned any reasons for differing with the findings recorded by the enquiry officer and therefore, the show-cause notice and the impugned order are liable to be set aside. He further submits that the similar issue fell for consideration in T.Vittala Chary v. Central Power Distribution Company of A.P. Ltd rep. by its Chairman & Managing Director, Hyderabad & Anr. (W.P.No.20455 of 2007, dated 28.01.2008), wherein this Court set aside the order of punishment. He also submits that the judgment of the learned Single Judge was carried in appeal being Writ Appeal No.1322 of 2008 and the said Writ Appeal ended in dismissal, by judgment dated 23.10.2008. 5. Learned Standing Counsel for APCPDCL appearing for the respondents submits that the show-cause notice issued to the petitioner is explicit that the disciplinary authority is differing with the findings recorded by the enquiry officer. 6. I have gone through the show-cause notice issued by the 1st respondent. The text of the show-cause notice reads as hereunder: “In the references 1st cited, Sri M.Rama Narasimhulu, District & Sessions Judge (Retd.) was appointed as Enquiry Officer to enquire into the allegations of irregularities committed by Sri Basheeruddin, ALM/Thangedpally. The Enquiry Officer has issue charge sheet duly framing the charge as detailed therein. 2. Sri Basheeruddin, ALM/Thangedpally, has submitted his explanation to the charge sheet. The Enquiry Officer after conducting the detailed enquiry as per rules has submitted the enquiry report vide his letter 2nd cited. The Enquiry Officer held that the charge against Sri Basheeruddin, ALM/Thangedpally is not established and not held proved. 3. The undersigned has carefully examined the enquiry repot with reference to the charge framed against Sri Basheeruddin, ALM/thangedpally, his explanation to the charge sheet and findings of the Enquiry Officer thereon. While deferring the findings of the Enquiry Officer the undersigned has observed that the Divis Pharmaceutical Company has taken the bore wells on lease from the farmers situated around the company and pumping the water into the sump by putting individual pipe lines from each and every bore well separately and the water was used for industrial purpose from the agricultural connections. Thus Sri Basheeruddin, ALM/Thangedpally knew the violation/irregularity, but failed to take any action. After careful examination of the entire matter the undersigned has come to the provisional conclusion to impose the punishment of “Reversion to the lower cadre, i.e. JLM” against Sri Basheeruddin, ALM/Thangedpally for his failure to convert the agricultural services into commercial services which caused loss of Rs.5,16,372/- to the company. 4. A copy of the enquiry report is herewith enclosed. 5. Sri Basheeruddin, ALM/Thangedpally, is therefore directed to show cause within 15 days from the date of receipt of this Memo, as to why the punishment proposed in para.3 above should not be imposed on him. He is also informed that, if his explanation is not received within the stipulated time, it will be construed that he has no explanation to offer and further action will be taken based on that assumption and the material available on record. Encls: Copy of the enquiry report.” The show-cause notice does not reflect as to the reasons for differing the findings recorded by the enquiry officer. It is a matter of record that the enquiry officer found the petitioner not guilty of the charges leveled against him. In case the disciplinary authority did not agree with the findings recorded by the enquiry officer, it is the cardinal principles of natural justice that the disciplinary authority has to assign the reasons for differing with the findings of the enquiry officer. Since the show- cause notice does not reflect any reasons for disagreeing with the conclusions arrived at by the enquiry officer and therefore, the show- cause notice and the impugned order are liable to be set aside. 7. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed setting aside the impugned order dated 24.07.2007 passed by the 1st respondent leaving open to the 1st respondent to issue fresh show-cause notice to the petitioner assigning reasons for disagreeing with the findings of the Enquiry Officer. No costs. ______________________ B.SESHASAYANA REDDY, J. Date:24th February, 2009. cs ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{KSRANI}