THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI WRIT PETITION No.22140 OF 2008 DATED: 17.03.2010 Between: N. Kumaraiah … Petitioner And 1. The Northern Power Distribution Company Limited, Rep. by its Chairman and Managing Director, Warangal, Warangal District., and 2 others. … Respondents THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI WRIT PETITION No.22140 OF 2008 ORDER : The petitioner is working as a Divisional Engineer in Northern Power Distribution Company Limited (NPDCL) at Sirpur Kagaznagar, Adilabad District. By order dated 19.12.2002 passed by the 3rd respondent herein, the petitioner was awarded the punishment of stoppage of one increment without cumulative effect. The petitioner’s appeal before the 2nd respondent was dismissed by order dated 23.01.2003. Against the said order, the petitioner preferred a Review Petition before the 1st respondent under Regulation 14 of the APSEB Employees (Discipline and Appeal) Regulations (as adapted by APNPDCL) on 14.08.2007. The said Review petition was also rejected vide 1st respondent’s memo dated 12.02.2008. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition has been filed seeking a Certiorari to call for the records relating to the orders dated 12.02.2008, 23.01.2003 and 19.12.2002 passed by the respondents 1, 2 & 3 respectively and to quash the same. The facts, in brief, are as under: The writ petitioner was appointed as Assistant Engineer on 10.07.1982 in the erstwhile A.P. State Electricity Board. Later on he was promoted as Assistant Divisional Engineer on 17.02.1994. While he was working as such at Mancherial, Adilabad District, by memo dated 31.12.1997 issued by the Superintending Engineer (Operation), APSEB, Adilabad, the petitioner was called upon to explain the alleged delay in replacement of 11 KV CTPT set of M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Limited, Chennur. The petitioner submitted his explanation stating that the delay was occurred due to non-availability of 11 KV cable and jointing kits. Another memo dated 5.1.1998 was issued by the Superintending Engineer, Adilabad, informing the petitioner that it was pointed out by the Accountant General (Audit) that the wrong categorization of HT service 153 – SDO, Telecom, Mancherial had resulted in short-billing of Rs.1.58 lakhs and calling upon him to submit his explanation. The petitioner submitted his explanation denying the allegations and the Divisional Electrical Engineer (Operation), Mancherial also addressed a letter dated 08.01.1998 bringing to the notice of the Superintending Engineer (Adilabad) that there were no lapses on the part of the petitioner. In turn, the Superintending Engineer, Adilabad submitted a report dated 8.1.1998 to the Chief Electrical Engineer, Nizamabad Zone, APSEB. While so, on enactment of A.P. Reforms Act, 1999, Transmission Corporation of A.P. Limited (AP TRANSCO) was incorporated in the place of APSEB. Thereafter by memo dated 4.9.2000 issued by the AP TRANSCO the petitioner was again informed that during the audit conducted by the Accountant General (Audit) of A.P. during November, 1997 in respect of Operations Circle, Adilabad, certain lapses were noticed which constituted misconduct as per AP TRANSO Disciplinary and Appeal Regulations and calling upon the petitioner submit his explanation within 15 days as to why a suitable disciplinary action should not be taken against him. The irregularities specified in the said memo were as under : (i) Annual testing on meters at 24 out of 66 HT services is not done. (ii) The 11 KV CTPT set at M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Limited Chennur which had failed in October 96 is not replaced even after one year. (iii) The wrong categorization of HT service of SDO Telcom, Manchiryal (Cat-I instead of Cat-II – resulting the short billing of Rs.1.50 lakhs was pointed out.) (iv) In respect of HT service ADB-10 of M/s. Annapurna Cements Ltd., the following observations are made. (a) Periodical checks of meter are not done. (b) Non-review of abnormal variation in consumption. (c) Delay in finalization of case as per DPE report resulting in non-realization of Rs.98/19 lakhs. (d) Undue favour to the consumer due to all the above. Though the petitioner submitted a detailed explanation dated 17.10.2000, no further steps were taken for a period of 2 years. In the meanwhile the petitioner was posted as in-charge Divisional Engineer in Northern Power Distribution Company Limited on 28.02.2002. Thereafter, by memo dated 11.09.2002 the petitioner was informed that his explanation dated 17.10.2000 was found to be not satisfactory and it was provisionally concluded by the Chairman and Managing Director of AP TRANSCO to impose the punishment of stoppage of two increments with cumulative effect and the petitioner was called upon to show-cause as to why the said punishment should not be imposed. The petitioner submitted his explanation dated 16.10.2002. Thereupon the 3rd respondent passed the order dated 19.12.2002 imposing the punishment of stoppage of one increment without cumulative effect. The said order was confirmed by the respondents 2 and 1 by their orders dated 23.01.2003 and 12.02.2008 respectively. The said orders are challenged in this writ petition contending that the impugned orders which were passed without referring to the earlier memos issued on 23.12.1997 and 5.1.1998 and the explanation submitted by the petitioner which was substantiated by the report of the Superintending Engineer dated 8.1.1998 were arbitrary and illegal. It is also contended that since the action proposed for the alleged lapses pointed out by the Accountant General (Audit) during November, 1997 was already dropped long back, the impugned proceedings issued in the year 2002 were unwarranted and unjustified and the same were intended only to deprive the petitioner of his promotion to the next higher cadre. It is also contended that since other employees against whom similar lapses were alleged on the basis of very same report of the Accountant General (Audit) were let off with warning, the impugned punishment awarded against the petitioner amounts to discrimination violating Article 14 of the Constitution. The learned counsel for the petitioner while relying upon the decisions of the Supreme Court in STATE OF A.P. v. N. RADHAKISHAN[1] and P.V. MAHADEVAN v. M.D., TAMIL NADU HOUSING BOARD[2] further contended that the disciplinary proceedings initiated in the year 2002 on the ground of lapses allegedly took place during the year 1996-1997 were vitiated on the ground of inordinate delay, particularly in the absence of any explanation, and therefore the impugned orders are liable to be set aside on that ground alone. I have also heard the learned counsel appearing for the respondents and perused the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the 2nd respondent. So far as the contention of the petitioner that the entire proceedings initiated against the petitioner were initiated on the ground of delay is concerned, it is to be noticed that the proceedings were initiated in the year 1997 itself bringing to the notice of the petitioner the alleged lapses which were pointed out by the Accountant General (Audit) during September, 1997. Thereafter AP TRANSCO was incorporated in terms of A.P. Reforms Act, 1999 and pursuant thereto the petitioner was allotted to NPDCL. Apparently the charge memo dated 4.9.2000 was in continuation of the earlier proceedings initiated in the year 1997. Hence, I do not find any substance in the contention that there was inordinate delay and at any rate the delay cannot be held to be without any explanation. The two decisions relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner, wherein the petitioners therein challenged the proceedings at the stage of charge memo itself and it was found by the Court that there was inordinate delay in proceeding with the enquiry have no application to the facts and circumstances of the present case. However, on a careful consideration of the material available on record, I am of the opinion that the action of the 2nd respondent in dismissing the petitioner’s appeal against the order dated 19.12.2002 was not in accordance with law. Being the appellate authority, the 2nd respondent is bound to re-appreciate the entire material available on record so as to decide the question whether the alleged charges were established. However, the Appellate Authority failed to consider any of the specific contentions raised by the petitioner including that the alleged lapses were satisfactorily explained in the year 1998 itself and the same was also substantiated by the report of the Superintending Engineer, dated 8.1.1998. Particularly the contention that in identical circumstances one Narsinga Rao was let-off with warning was not at all considered. Moreover the Appellate authority failed to assign any reasons while dismissing the appeal. The review petition preferred by the petitioner was also rejected by a cryptic order without application of mind to any of the contentions raised by the petitioner. Hence, the orders of both the respondents 1 and 2 cannot be sustained and are liable to be set aside. Accordingly impugned orders dated 23.01.2003 and 12.2.2008 are hereby set aside and the Writ Petition is disposed of with a direction to the 1st respondent to reconsider the petitioner’s appeal preferred against the order dated 19.12.2002 and pass appropriate orders following due process of law in the light of the observations made above. Such exercise shall be completed as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of this order. No costs. ___________ G. ROHINI,J. Dt. 17.03.2010 gbs [1] (1998) 4 SCC 154 [2] 2005 (6) SCALE 450