IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY W.P.Nos.7889, 7890 and 7891 of 2008 WRIT PETITION No. 7889 of 2008 Between: M.Sanjeeva Kondaiah S/o. Late Sri M. Sanjanna R/o. D.No. 1506, 28th Street, Saibabanagar, Nandyal Nandyal, Kurnool District. ..... PETITIONER AND Central Power Distribution Company of A.P. Ltd., Red Hills, Rep. by its Chairman & Managing Director, Hyd. .....RESPONDENT Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue a order direction or a writ more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus restraining the respondents from implementing the Memo No. DS (Per) / AS(Per/PO(DC)/997-C2/2004-41, dated 20.08.2005 and set aside the same. WRIT PETITION NO : 7890 of 2008 Between: S. Ampaiah S/o Late Sri. Busappa R/o 30/34, A-1, Revenue Quarters, nandayal, Karnool District. ..... PETITIONER AND The Central Power Distribution Company of Andhra Pradesh Ltd rep by its Chairman and Managing Director .....RESPONDENT Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue an order, Direction, or a Writ Particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus" restraining the respondent from implementing the Memo No. Ds(Per)/As(Per)/Po (DC)/997-C-2/2004-40 dated 20th August 2005 and pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. WRIT PETITION NO : 7891 of 2008 Between: K.V.Subbaiah S/o.Late Sri K.Pedda Subbaiah, R/o.28/852/B/1,Near CPM Office NGO's Colony Road Nandyal Kurnool Dist ..... PETITIONER AND C.P.D.C of A.P Ltd Red Hills Rep. by its Chairman& Managing Director Hyd .....RESPONDENT Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue a order, or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus restraining the respondents from implementing the Memo No.DS(Per)/AS(Per/PO(DC)/1997-C2/2004-44 dt.19-09-2005 and set aside the same. Counsel for the Petitioners: MR.S.RAVINDRANATH Counsel for the Respondents: P.R.BALARAMI REDDY (SC FOR AP TRANSCO) The Court made the following COMMON ORDER: These three writ petitions arise under similar set of facts. Hence, they are disposed of through a common order. The petitioners were employed in different capacities in Central Power Distribution Company of Andhra Pradesh Limited, the respondent herein. Charge Memos, dated 11.06.2004, were served upon them alleging certain omissions on their part. Not being satisfied with the explanations submitted by them, the respondent ordered departmental enquiry. The Enquiry Officer submitted individual reports holding that the charges levelled against the respective petitioners are not proved. Thereafter, explanations from the petitioners were invited as to why necessary punishment shall not be inflicted upon them. The petitioners submitted their explanations. Through the orders passed on different dates, the respondent inflicted the punishment of stoppage of one increment with cumulative effect on the respective petitioners. The same are challenged in these writ petitions. Sri S.Ravindranath, the learned counsel for the petitioners, submits that once the Enquiry Officer filed a report holding that the charges levelled against the petitioners are not proved, it was not open to the respondent to take a different view. He contends that the respondent committed a serious procedural irregularity in inflicting the punishment, even while the findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer were intact. Sri P.R.Balarami Reddy, the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, submits that though the charges levelled against the petitioners were held not proved, the respondent indicated its point of view in the show cause notices issued to the petitioners and after taking into account the explanations submitted by the petitioners, the impugned orders are passed. He submits that no procedural irregularity can be said to have been committed. The disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the petitioners when they were in service. In the departmental enquiry, the charges levelled against the petitioners were held not proved. The Enquiry Officer has undertaken extensive discussion in support of his conclusions. In case the respondent wanted to differ with the findings, it ought to have issued notices to the petitioners requiring them to explain as to why a different view from the one taken by the Enquiry Officer shall not be taken. That, however, was not done in the instant case. After inviting explanations with reference to the report of the Enquiry Officer, the respondent proceeded to impose the punishment of stoppage of increments with cumulative effect. Further, an observation was made to the effect that even though the charges levelled against the petitioners are not proved, there are other factors to justify the punishment. Such a procedure is totally impermissible. An extraneous factor cannot be taken into account to impose any punishment. Viewed from any angle, the impugned orders cannot be sustained in law. The writ petitions are accordingly allowed and the impugned orders are set aside. There shall be order as to costs. __________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY,J Dt:28.04.2008. kdl ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{BMR} ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{KSRANI} ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{TRT}