THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU WRIT PETITION No.22942 OF 1999 DATED: 13.02.2008 Between: G. Chakravardhan Reddy .. Petitioner And Transmission Corporation of Andhra Pradesh Limited, represented by Chief Managing Director, Hyderabad and others. .. Respondents THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU WRIT PETITION No.22942 OF 1999 ORDER: This writ petition is filed seeking a Certiorari to call for the records relating to Memo No.CE/O/MZ/Hyd/PO/Adm/286-A2/99-5, dated 09.09.1999, issued by the 2nd respondent and to quash the same as arbitrary and illegal, and consequently to direct the respondents to reinstate the petitioner into service. It appears, the petitioner was appointed as Line Inspector in the erstwhile A.P. State Electricity Board (for short ‘the Board’) in the year 1965 and was subsequently promoted as Additional Assistant Engineer. While so, he suffered ill health due to Nephritis and, on account of the same, he had to go on leave on medical grounds on several occasions from the year 1969. He applied for leave from 08.12.1983 to 22.12.1983 due to ill health and joined duty on 23.12.1983, and also received salary for the month of December, 1983. Again, due to jaundice and renal problem, he applied for leave from 01.01.1984 to 31.04.1984 and extended the same by sending applications, along with medical certificates, seeking extension of leave. Since there was no communication regarding sanction or rejection of leave, he was under the impression that his applications for grant of leave have been considered by the authorities and leave has been granted. Ultimately, when he intended to join duty on 29.12.1988, he was not allowed for the same. Subsequently, he was issued with a show cause notice, dated 18.01.1989, by the Chief Engineer, Electricity, Western Zone, calling for his explanation as to why the period of his absence from duty from 08.12.1983 should not be treated as unauthorized absence and, as the absence is for more than one year, why he should not be deemed to have resigned from service with effect from 08.12.1983. He submitted his explanation to the said show cause notice. Finally, the disciplinary authority passed an order, dated 29.05.1989, holding that his explanation was not satisfactory and that he was deemed to have resigned from service from 08.12.1983. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner filed a writ petition, being W.P.No.11600 of 1989, and the same was disposed of on 23.12.1998, holding as under: “On perusal of the impugned order, I find that a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner and the petitioner gave an explanation, but no enquiry was held. The contention of the petitioner is that his leave applications were supported by Medical Certificates but the respondents, without holding an enquiry about the genuineness or otherwise of the same, treated his absence as unauthorized absence and deemed to have resigned from service. The authorities have to give a finding whether the petitioner has in fact applied for leave or not before treating his absence as unauthorized absence. Since no enquiry is held, the impugned order is liable to be set aside and accordingly it is set aside. However, it does not preclude the respondents from holding an enquiry on the allegations made against the petitioner. If the respondents decide to hold an enquiry, it should be completed within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. If the respondents are of the view that it is not a fit case for holding an enquiry, they should reinstate the petitioner within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of.” Copy of the said order was received by the respondents on 21.01.1999. But, the respondents have not taken any steps for initiating any enquiry and completing the same within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of the aforesaid order, as directed by this Court, nor they reinstated the petitioner into service. Since no enquiry was initiated, the petitioner was under the impression that he would be reinstated into service. But, to his utter surprise, the impugned memo, dated 09.09.1999, was issued by the 2nd respondent, stating that the 3rd respondent – Divisional Engineer/Enquiries, Hyderabad Zone, Hyderabad was appointed as Enquiry Officer to enquire into the allegations of his unauthorized absence. Pursuant to the said memo, the petitioner made a representation to the 2nd respondent stating that if the authorities wanted to conduct an enquiry, it should have been completed within three months from 21.01.1999, the date of receipt of a copy of the aforesaid order, as per the directions of this Court, and since no enquiry was conducted within the stipulated time, he is entitled for reinstatement. But, the respondents have not reinstated him into service. Hence, this writ petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that as per the directions of this Court in its order, dated 23.12.1998, in W.P.No.11600 of 1989, either the enquiry could have been completed within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of the said order or the petitioner could have been reinstated into service. No such steps were taken by the respondent authorities and on the other hand they dragged on the matter till 09.09.1999 i.e. for nearly eight months after receipt of the copy of the aforesaid order of this Court, for appointing an Enquiry Officer. Thereby, the respondents have violated the orders of this Court. Thus, the impugned order is liable to be set aside. A detailed counter-affidavit has been filed by the respondents denying the allegations made by the petitioner. It is asserted that the delay in contemplating enquiry was due to non-cooperation of the petitioner and also re-organization of the Board. Learned counsel for the respondents contended that may be the management was not able to conduct enquiry into the matter within three months as directed by this Court, but that itself does not entitle the petitioner for claiming that he cannot be proceeded with departmentally after lapse of the said three months. The petitioner is a chronic absentee and he absented continuously for about four years and, therefore, question of showing any lenience against him does not arise. The writ petition is devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed. I have given my earnest consideration to the respective submissions made by the learned counsel on either side and perused the impugned order and other material made available on record. The only question that arises for consideration is whether the 2nd respondent could have initiated disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner after a lapse of about eight months from the date of receipt of a copy of the order passed by this Court on 23.12.1998 in W.P.No.11600 of 1989, by appointing an enquiry officer vide the impugned memo dated 09.09.1999, without following the directions issued by this Court in the said order? A perusal of the order, dated 23.12.1998, passed in W.P.No.11600 of 1989 would indicate that the order impugned therein was passed without conducting an enquiry and, hence, the same was set aside by this Court. It was also held that if the respondents decide to hold an enquiry, it should be completed within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of the order and, if they are of the view that it is not a fit case for holding an enquiry, they should reinstate the petitioner within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. Thus, it is clear that the respondents should have completed the enquiry within the stipulated period of three months or otherwise they should have reinstated the petitioner into service. But, such a course was not adopted by the authorities. The authorities, for the reasons best known to them, had waited for about eight months and issued the impugned memo on 09.09.1999, appointing an enquiry officer to conduct enquiry into the allegations levelled against the petitioner. Even, in the meanwhile, the petitioner ought to have been reinstated into service in compliance of the orders passed by this Court. But the same was also not done, which shows the respondents’ utter disregard to the orders of this Court. In this regard, learned counsel for the petitioner has rightly relied upon a Judgment of this Court in Government of A.P. and another v. D. Sudershan Rao[1], wherein it was held as under: “It is trite to state that State and State authorities are expected and legally obliged to implement the orders and the writ issued by any legally competent judicial Tribunal or Court. The State authorities can never be permitted to flout the orders of the Court with arrogance and without any justification. This very contumacious conduct of the petitioner-authorities disentitles them to get any relief at the hands of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.” Learned counsel for the petitioner also relied upon a Judgment of the High Court of Karnataka in M.C. Srinivas and others v. Karnataka Silk Industries Corporation Limited and another[2]. This is a case where, contrary to the order passed by the High Court of Karnataka directing the disciplinary authority to complete the enquiry within three months, the disciplinary authority discontinued the enquiry and imposed a punishment. The said action was held illegal and also violative of principles of natural justice. This Judgment is slightly on a different note and, therefore, there is no necessity of taking the same into consideration. On a careful consideration of the matter, I am of the opinion that the action of the 2nd respondent in proceeding with the enquiry by appointing an enquiry officer after a lapse of about eight months from the date of receipt of a copy of the order, dated 23.12.1998, passed by this Court in W.P.No.11600 of 1989, is diametrically contrary to the directions issued by this Court in the said writ petition. Therefore, the impugned memo is liable to be set aside. However, it is unfortunate to notice that, during the pendency of the writ petition, the petitioner has attained the age of superannuation in the month of June 2001. Under those circumstances, to meet the ends of justice, I deem it appropriate to set aside the impugned memo, dated 09.09.1999, and direct the respondents to treat that the petitioner was in continuous service till the date of his attaining the age of superannuation in the month of June 2001 and his salary shall be fixed on notional basis till the date of his retirement and he shall be paid pension and other retirement benefits treating that he was in continuous service upto June 2001. However, the petitioner is not entitled to any backwages from the date of his absence till June 2001. The writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of. No order as to costs. _________________ JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU 13th February, 2008. IBL [1] 2001 (1) ALD 553 (DB) [2] 1999 (5) KLD 578