IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR WRIT APPEAL NO : 1434 of 2002 (Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the Order dated 08-08-2002 in WP NO : 14992 OF 2001 on the file of the High Court.) Between: 1 The Managing Director, The Sourthern Power Distribution Company of A.P. Ltd., Tirupathi. 2 The Superintending Engingeer, A.P. TRANSCO LTD., Operation , Guntur. 3 The Divisional Electrical Engineer A.P. TRANSCO LTD , Operation, Tenali , Guntur District. ..... APPELLANT(S) AND D. Basava Raju, S/o. Late. D. Koteswara Rao, Electricity Revenue Office, Bapatla, Operation Division, Tenali, Guntur District. .....RESPONDENT Counsel for the Appellant:MR.P.R.BALARAMI REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.: MR.S.GOPAL RAO The Court made the following : Form-NIC-OGS/WA {VVS} HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY AND HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR WRIT APPEAL No.1434 of 2002 JUDGMENT: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice A.Gopal Reddy) The Managing Director of Southern Power Distribution Company of A.P. Limited, Tirupathi, has preferred this appeal against the order of the learned Single Judge of this Court dated 08-08-2002, passed in W.P.No.14992 of 2001 allowing the writ petition ﬁled by the respondent herein challenging the order dated 28-07- 2000 passed by the 3rd respondent-Divisional Electrical Engineer, Operation, Tenali, wherein, the respondent-writ petitioner was dismissed from service, and the same was conﬁrmed in appeal by the 2 nd respondent- Superintendent Engineer, Operation, Guntur, vide Memo No.SE/O/GNT/Ad.C3/D.No.271/2001, dated 24-01-2001. 2. The writ petitioner-respondent herein obtained rule nisi from this Court calling upon the respondents- appellants herein to show cause why the writ in the nature of Certiorari should not be issued under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by calling for the records of the 3rd respondent-Divisional Electrical Engineer, Operation, Tenali, in proceedings dated 28-07-2000, as conﬁrmed by the Superintendent Engineer, Operation, Guntur, and for quashing the same. 3. Petitioner’s father D. Koteswararao, who was a lineman in A.P.S.E.B. at Guntur, died while in service on 18-07-1998. The petitioner was appointed (on compassionate grounds) as Watchman vide Memo No.DEE/OTNL/Adm?U1/D No.4458/98, dated 14-12-1998, issued by the Divisional Engineer, Electricity Revenue Office, Baptla and he reported to duty on 21-12-1998 F.N. Later, on veriﬁcation of the attestation forms and other certiﬁcates by the Superintendent of Police, Guntur, at the request of the 3rd respondent, it was found that the Transfer Certiﬁcate issued by the Head Master was not tallied and hence, it was conﬁrmed that it was not genuine one. In view of the same, based on the report from the Superintendent of police, Guntur, the 3rd respondent-Divisional Electrical Engineer, Tenali, suspended the petitioner-watchman by the memo dated 26-08-1999 and requested the 2nd respondent- Superintending Engineer, Operation, Guntur, to appoint the Divisional Engineer, Enquiries, Vijayawada as Enquiry oﬃcer for enquiry. After conducting enquiry, on framing the charges, the Enquiry Oﬃcer, submitted a report on 31-01-2000 which led to the dismissal of the petitioner vide memo passed by the 3rd respondent-Divisional Electrical Engineer, Operation, Tenali, dated 28-07-2000. The appeal ﬁled by the writ petitioner against the said order, was dismissed. 4. It is not disputed that the penalty of dismissal from service, and that the disciplinary authority himself acted as a witness in the enquiry conducted by the enquiry oﬃcer and inﬂicted the dismissal order on the employee. The learned Single Judge after referring to the judgment of the Supreme Court in STATE OF UTTARPRADESH v. MOHAMMAD NOOH [1], allowed the writ petition holding that the order of dismissing the petitioner from service was patently illegal and the said order was passed in violation of principles of natural justice, since the disciplinary authority himself acted as a witness during the departmental enquiry and he himself passed the dismissal order dated 28-07-2000. 5. In the above case, the Supreme Court categorically held that the disciplinary authority cannot play two roles viz., when the Deputy Superintendent of Police, who conducted enquiry, himself gave a testimony, it is the violation of principles of natural of justice. The Supreme Court also held that when the order of dismissal passed in violation of principles of natural justice, the writ petition can be maintainable, even without availing the other remedies available under appeals arising out of industrial disputes. 6. In view of the same, we do not ﬁnd any merit in the contention of the learned counsel for the appellants that since the petitioner has approached this Court without availing alternative remedy available under appeals arising out of industrial disputes, this Court cannot entertain the writ petition. We do not ﬁnd any infirmity in the order passed by the learned Single Judge. 7. In the result, the writ appeal is dismissed. No costs. _______________________ JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY _____________________________ JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR September 18, 2008 Kvr [1] AIR 1958 S.C. 86