IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 2361 of 2008 Between: N. Venkateswarlu S/o Narayana O/o AP Central Power Distribution Company Limited R/o H. No. 10-77, Gayathri nagar, Vaishali nagar, karmanghat, Hyderabad-79 ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Superintending Engineer (Operations), A.P. Central Power Distribution Co. Ltd., Ranga Reddy (South), Budha Bhavan, Secunderabad 2 The Divisional Engineer, Electrical Operations, A.P. Central Power Distribution Co. Ltd., Rajendranagar Division, Rajendranagar, Ranga Reddy District. 3 The Divisional Engineer Electrical Operations A.P. Central Power Distribution Co. ltd., Saroornagar Division, Saroornagar, Ranga Reddy District. 4 The Divisional Engineer/Electrical Enquiries and Enquiry Office, AP central Power Distribution of company Ltd., Red Hills, Hyderabad. 5 Sri Shaik baba S/o and age not known to the petitioner Addl. Assistant Engineer/Operations, pahadi Shareef Section, Central Power Distribution Company of A.P Ltd., Pahadi Shareef, Ramnga Reddy District. .....RESPONDENTS 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 appropriate Writ, order or direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Certiorari calling for the records relating to and connected with the Memo No. SE/OP/ECGH/Adm./C1/F880/D. No. 547/08, dated 28-1-2008, of the 1st respondent and quash the same by setting aside the ex parte enquiry report of the 4th respondent dated 30- 11-2007 as opposed to principles of natural justice and pass such other order or orders as are deemed ﬁt and proper. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.C.S.K.V.RAMANAMURTHY Counsel for the Respondents: P.R.BALARAMI REDDY(SC FOR AP TRANSCO) The Court made the following : ORDER: The petitioner is employed as Sub-Engineer in the A.P. Central Power Distribution Company Limited. He states that though his substantive posting is in the oﬃce of the third respondent, he is working on deputation with the second respondent. He states that he applied for leave for the period from 19.10.2006 to 09.11.2006 and when he attended the oﬃce of the second respondent on 10.11.2006, he was not permitted to resume duty. Disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him by serving a charge sheet, alleging that he was unauthorisedly absent from 01.09.2005. Stating that the petitioner failed to submit his explanation, the ﬁrst respondent appointed an Enquiry Oﬃcer, who is said to have ﬁled a report, holding that the charge, framed against the petitioner, is proved. On the basis of the same, the ﬁrst respondent issued a memo, dated 28.01.2008, proposing the punishment of removal from service. The same is challenged in this Writ Petition. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. The service of the petitioner with the respondents is surrounded by several controversies and number of writ petitions were ﬁled for one relief or the other. It is also stated that the petitioner has been inﬂicted with the punishments of different degrees, on earlier occasions. The petitioner complains that he has not been served with any charge sheet at all. The respondents, on the other hand, alleged that it was sent through registered post, and in fact, a copy of it was served through a messenger on the mother of the petitioner. The fact remains that no explanation was submitted by the petitioner and ex parte enquiry report was submitted. The petitioner did not have any opportunity to put forward his case. This Court is of the view that ends of justice would be met, if the impugned notice as well as report of the Enquiry Oﬃcer are set aside and the petitioner is given an opportunity. Having regard to the attitude exhibited by the petitioner, at various stages, the ﬁxation of calendar by this Court itself is also felt necessary. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the Writ Petition is allowed, and the impugned memo, dated 28.01.2008, as well as report of the Enquiry Oﬃcer, are set aside. The charge memo, which is served upon the learned counsel for the petitioner, shall be treated as the basis and the petitioner shall submit his explanation thereto, on or before 08.09.2008. The Enquiry Oﬃcer shall arrange ﬁrst hearing of the matter on 15.09.2008. Thereafter, he shall proceed with the matter on day-to-day basis, conclude the enquiry by 30.09.2008, and submit his report. The ﬁrst respondent shall take necessary steps depending upon the ﬁndings recorded by the Enquiry Oﬃcer. Till the proceedings are concluded, the petitioner shall be entitled to be paid the subsistence allowance as directed by this Court in W.P.No.5967 of 2007. There shall be no order as to costs. ____________________ Dt.28.08.2008 L.NARASIMHA REDDY, J GJ