IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE FIFTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI and THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT APPEAL NO : 272 of 2009 (Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the Order dated 06/12/2007 in WP NO : 22092 OF 2007 on the file of the High Court.) Between: Southern Power Distribution Co. Ltd., rep by its Superintending Engineer Operation Circle, Ongole, Prakasam District. ..... APPELLANT AND 1 N. Murali krishna S/o Subbaiah R/o Giddalur, Prakasam District. 2 Southern Power Distribution Co. of A.P., Ltd., rep by its Chairman and Managing Director, Renigunta Road, Tirupati, Chittoor district. 3 Southern Power Distribution Co. of A.P., Ltd., rep by Divisional Engineer, Operation, Ongole, Prakasam District. .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Appellant:MR.P.R.BALARAMI REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.1: MR.A.K.JAYAPRAKASH RAO The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI and THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT APPEAL No :272 of 2009 Judgment: (Per Hon’ble Sri C.V. Nagarjuna Reddy,J) This writ appeal is filed against order dated 6.12.2007 in W.P. No. 22092 of 2007 of the learned single Judge, whereby the learned single Judge set aside order dated 24.1.2004 passed by respondent No. 3. The facts in brief are that respondent No.1 was appointed as a Contract Junior Lineman in pursuance of a Scheme framed by the appellant. It was a tenure appointment. Before the expiry of his tenure, he was dismissed from service by order dated 19.10.2005 on the ground that he collected monies from the consumers and fixed meters unauthorisedly and allowed the consumers to utilize the supply in Kandukur Town, causing heavy loss to the appellant-Corporation. The said order was challenged in Writ Petition No. 22092 of 2007, which was allowed by the learned single Judge on the short ground that the order of dismissal was not preceded by any enquiry. At the hearing, Sri P.R. Balarami Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for the appellant submitted that after the dismissal of respondent No.1, a detailed enquiry was conducted and on the basis of the enquiry report, the earlier order of dismissal was re-confirmed by the appellant by order dated 19.10.2005. Having carefully considered the submissions of the learned Standing Counsel and having perused the record, we are of the view that the view taken by the learned single Judge is unexceptionable, as no temporary or permanent employee can be dismissed from service without holding an enquiry, if mis-conduct constitutes the basis for his dismissal. To this extent, the finding of the learned single Judge setting aside the dismissal order dated 19.10.2005 is perfectly legal and valid. The learned Standing Counsel submitted that since an enquiry was subsequently conducted wherein an opportunity was given to respondent No.1 to participate in the enquiry and the enquiry report has already been submitted by the Enquiry Officer to the appellant, the appellant may be permitted to pass a fresh order. Having heard Sri A. K. Jayaprakash Rao, learned counsel for respondent No.1 in this regard, we find justification in the request of the learned Standing Counsel. Even if the order of dismissal was found to be illegal, that should not deter the appellant from taking action against respondent No.1 in accordance with law. As it is not in dispute that enquiry was subsequently conducted, wherein respondent No.1 has participated. Interest of justice would be met if respondent No.1 is reinstated as Contract Junior Lineman, subject to the same terms and conditions, which governed his appointment order and the appellant is directed to issue notice to respondent No.1, consider the explanation, if any, filed by him and pass appropriate orders on the enquiry report submitted by the Enquiry Officer. Respondent No.1 is permitted to report to the Divisional Engineer, Southern Power Distribution Company Limited, Ongole on 16.3.2009. On such reporting, the Divisional Engineer shall take respondent No.1 to duty. As regards the consequential benefits payable to the respondent No.1, as directed by the learned single Judge, we make it clear that respondent No.1 shall be entitled to the arrears of pay strictly as per the terms of his contract appointment. Subject to the above modification of the order of the learned single Judge, the writ appeal is disposed of. No costs. ___________________ T. MEENA KUMARI,J DATE: 5th March, 2009 __________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY,J pnb