THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION N0.30996 of 2010 ORDER: The petitioner was employed by the erstwhile A.P. Electricity Board as a Helper. Disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him, for the alleged acts of misconduct. Through order, dated 10.05.1979, the Divisional Electrical Engineer (O & C), Kamareddy, 4th respondent herein imposed the punishment of censure. The appellate authority i.e., Superintending Engineer, (Operations) Nizamabad, 3rd respondent herein issued a show cause, notice dated 16.12.1980 requiring the petitioner to explain as to why the punishment of postponing two increments with cumulative effect, be not imposed against him. The petitioner submitted his explanation. Not being satisfied with that, the 3rd respondent passed an order, dated 08.09.1981 imposing the punishment. The petitioner states that the earlier punishment of censure was entered in the record and on a request made by him to the concerned officials, they did not implement the subsequent order, dated 08.09.1981. The Electricity Board was re-organized in the previous decade. The 2nd respondent herein noticed that the order of punishment passed against the petitioner on 08.09.1981 was not implemented. Accordingly, he issued memo, dated 11.08.2010 requiring the 4th respondent to give effect to the order of punishment. The petitioner feels aggrieved by the said proceedings. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned memo is issued nearly three decades after the punishment was imposed and there was absolutely no basis for it. He also submits that the punishment of censure imposed against the petitioner was already implemented and the subsequent order has become virtually redundant. Learned Standing Counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, submits that the petitioner did not choose to challenge the order, dated 08.09.1981, and as long as it stands, the implementation thereof cannot either be stopped or deferred. The petitioner was no doubt imposed the punishment of censure. However, as provided for under the relevant rules, the appellate authority exercised his suo motu powers and reopened the matter by issuing a show cause notice. After taking into account the explanation submitted by the petitioner, the proposed punishment of postponing of two increments with cumulative effect was imposed. If the petitioner felt aggrieved by that order, he ought to have taken necessary steps in accordance with the rules or approached this Court. He did neither and permitted the order to become final. For one reason or the other, the order of punishment was not implemented. The petitioner does not derive any right on account of such lapse. At the same time, the respondents cannot recover the amount, which has already been paid to the petitioner in the name of implementing the order at this stage. Therefore, the writ petition is partly allowed, directing that- (a) the respondents shall be entitled to implement the order, dated 08.09.1981 prospectively; (b) as a result thereof, the punishment of censure passed against the petitioner shall cease to be in force; and (c) the respondents shall not be entitled to recover any amount that has been paid to the petitioner towards salary, on account of the implementation of the order of punishment. There shall be no order as to costs. __________ 04.08.2011 JSU THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION N0. 30996 of 2010 Date: 04.08.2011 JSU