HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA WRIT PETITION No.8300 of 2005 ORDER: The petitioner had joined duty as a Assistant Engineer, D1 Section, A.P.S.E.Board, Srikakulam on 05.05.1994. While so, he was charge-sheeted vide Memo No.SE/EC/68/96 dated 23.12.1996 and 12.05.1997 by the Superintending Engineer, Enquiry Cell, Hyderabad, for certain irregularities alleged to have been committed by him while discharging his official duties. It is stated that the petitioner has submitted a detailed explanation to the said charges levelled against him. It is further stated that a domestic enquiry was conducted and that the petitioner was found guilty of the charges levelled against him. Subsequently, the Member Secretary, APSEB, has issued a show cause notice dated 30.01.1999 asking the petitioner to show cause as to why punishment of ‘removal from service’ should not be imposed for the charges held proved against him. It is further stated that the petitioner has submitted a detailed explanation/reply to the said show cause notice on 27.05.1999. It is further stated that the Director of A.P. Transco had treated the said reply as an appeal and had modified the punishment from ‘removal from service’ to that of ‘reduction of pay by three stages for a period of two years’. Thereafter, the petitioner submitted a representation that his earlier reply to the show cause was wrongly treated as an appeal and the same may be amended. Consequently, the Joint Managing Director (Personnel and H.R.D) vide memo dated 17.01.2002 has issued the amended order, which reads as under: “i) The words ‘Appeal’ of Sri Y.Appa Rao, Assistant Engineer, against final orders mentioned in the subject be read as “explanation of Sri Y.Appa Rao, Assistant Engineer- Final orders-issued”. ii) The No.(3) may be read as “The Chairman and Managing Director/A.P. Transco has carefully examined the representation of Sri Y.Appa Rao, Assistant Engineer and taking a lenient view has decided to modify the punishment of “Removal from Service” to that of “Reduction of pay by three stages for a period of two years” to Sri Y.Appa Rao, Assistant Engineer. iii) The Para (4) may be read as “Accordingly it is ordered that “Reduction of pay by 3 stages for a period of two years” of Sri Y.Appa aRao, be implemented from the date of the final orders issued vide reference 3rd cited i.e., on 06.04.2000.” Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the respondent-A.P. Transco herein, which was rejected by order dated 08.10.2002. Assailing the same, the petitioner filed the present writ petition. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that a perusal of Para-2 (ii) of the aforesaid order dated 17.01.2002 would show that the decision has been taken by the Chairman and Managing Director of A.P. Transco, whereas according to the Revised Conduct Regulations of A.P. Transco Employees, it is the Joint Managing Director (Rev. & HRD) who is competent to pass orders with regard to reduction to a lower rank in seniority/lower post/lower time-scale/lower stage in a time-scale. He further submits that the respondent, who had passed the original order, had again rejected the appeal filed by the petitioner in his capacity as an appellate authority. He further points out that the Joint Managing Director is not the competent authority to decide the appeal filed by the petitioner, whereas the competent authority is the Chairman and Managing Director (CMD) as per column No.11 of the said revised Regulations. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent, on the other hand, would support the impugned orders on the basis of the averments in the counter-affidavit filed by the respondent. After hearing the learned Counsel for the parties, it is clear that the orders of reduction of pay of the petitioner by three stages for a period of two years could only be passed in the first instance by the Joint Managing Director (Rev. & H.R.D) of A.P. Transco but not by the Chairman and Managing Director of A.P. Transco. Secondly, an appeal filed challenging the punishment imposed can be considered and decided, as per the column No.11 of the Revised Conduct Rules of A.P. Transco Employees, by the Chairman and Managing Director of A.P. Transco but not by the Joint Managing Director of A.P. Transco, the respondent herein. In the light of the above, the orders dated 06.04.2000, 17.01.2002 and 08.10.2002 passed by the respondent authorities cannot be sustained and the same are hereby set aside. The writ petition is allowed to the extent indicated above. No order as to costs. __________________________ ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA, J 27.09.2011 Gsn