IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD TUESDAY, THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B.PRAKASH RAO and THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT APPEAL NO : 1480 of 2008 (Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the Order dated 13/08/2008 in WP NO : 4804 OF 2008 on the file of the High Court.) Between: 1 Andhra pradesh Northern Power Distribution Company Ltd., rep.by its Chairman & Managing Director, Warangal 2 The Chief General Manager-HRD, Andhra Pradesh Northern Power Distribution Company Ltd., Warangal. ..... APPELLANT(S) AND V.Papaiah S/o. Late Sri Sailu R/o.3-2-53, Vidyanagar Colony, Kothagudem, Khammam District. .....RESPONDENT Counsel for the Appellant:MR.P.R.BALARAMI REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.: MR.S.RAVINDRANATH The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.PRAKASH RAO AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT APPEAL NO.1480 OF 2008 J U D G M E N T (Per Sri Justice Sanjay Kumar) This writ appeal is preferred by the Andhra Pradesh Northern Power Distribution Company of A.P. Limited aggrieved by the order dated 13.08.2008 passed in Writ Petition No.4804 of 2008 allowing the writ petition, holding that the disciplinary action taken by the appellant Company against the writ petitioner vide Proceedings dated 23.02.2008, reverting him to the post of Sub-Engineer for a period of three years, was unsustainable on the ground that the Chief General Manager (HRD) of the appellant Company was the disciplinary authority for the post of Additional Assistant Engineer held by the petitioner, whereas the disciplinary action was initiated and concluded by the Chairman and Managing Director of the appellant Company. The learned Judge observed that the Chairman and Managing Director did not even figure as an appellate authority as per the service regulations produced before him in N.O.O. (CGM-HRD) Ms.No.117 dated 27.09.2002. The learned Judge further found that the Chairman and Managing Director had been prescribed as the disciplinary authority for several category of posts other than that of Additional Assistant Engineer, which was held by the writ petitioner. By order dated 12.02.2009, the order under challenge was suspended by a Division Bench of this Court. However, when the matter was taken up on the vacate stay application filed by the respondent/writ petitioner in WAVMP No.2068 of 2009 in WAMP No.2877 of 2008 in W.A.No.1480 of 2008, both the learned counsel submitted that the matter could be disposed of finally. Accordingly, the matter was taken up for final hearing at the interlocutory stage itself. Sri P.R.Balarami Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for the appellant Company, stated that there had been an amendment to the regulations, whereby the Chairman and Managing Director was made the disciplinary authority for the major penalty of reduction to a lower rank in seniority/lower post/lower time scale/lower stage in a time scale, in so far as the post of Additional Assistant Engineer is concerned. He placed before us a copy of a tabular statement titled ‘Schedule (Referred to in Regulation 7(a)) –Competent authorities which may impose penalties’. The learned Standing Counsel also produced a copy of the Proceedings in N.O.O. (CGM-HRD) Ms.No.117 dated 27.09.2002 with Annexure-II appended thereto. As per this annexure, the disciplinary authority in respect of the post of Additional Assistant Engineer is the Chief General Manager (HRD). The Proceedings in N.O.O. (CGM-HRD) Ms.No.117 dated 27.09.2002 speak of two Annexures being appended thereto – Annexure-I pertaining to the competent authorities which may impose penalties referred to in Regulation 7(a) of the APSEB Employees Discipline and Appeal Regulations, while Annexure-II dealt with the Committees whose concurrence was to be obtained to impose penalties specified in Items 4 and 6 to 8 in Regulation-5. As there is a discrepancy between Annexure-II appended to N.O.O. (CGM-HRD) Ms.No.117 dated 27.09.2002 and the tabular statement in the Schedule, with regard to who is the competent authority for imposition of the major penalty of reversion/reduction in rank, in so far as the post of Additional Assistant Engineer is concerned, Sri P.R.Balarami Reddy, learned counsel, was directed to place before us the complete set of regulations in this regard. The matter was adjourned on 25.08.2009, 02.09.2009 and 08.09.2009 to enable the learned counsel to produce the said regulations. Today, when the matter was taken up for hearing, it is represented on behalf of Sri P.R.Balarami Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for the appellant Company, that the complete set of regulations are not available. In spite of ample opportunity being afforded to the appellant Company, the reticence being shown by the appellant company to come forth with the actual rule position leaves us with no alternative but to draw an adverse inference. It appears that the appellant Company is itself not sure as to who is the competent authority for imposition of the major penalty of reversion/ reduction in rank in so far as the post of Additional Assistant Engineer is concerned. Annexure-II to the proceedings dated 27.09.2002 speaks of the Chief General Manager (HRD) as the competent authority, whereas the schedule which has been separately produced speaks of the Chairman and Managing Director as the competent authority. It is not explained as to what this schedule is and to what it is appended to. Similarly, Annexure-I, referred to in the Proceedings dated 27.09.2002, is not produced before us in spite of several adjournments being granted. In such circumstances, we are left with no alternative but to hold that the learned Judge was correct in holding that the Chief General Manager alone was the competent disciplinary authority to impose the punishment concerned upon the writ petitioner, and therefore the action initiated and concluded by the Chairman and Managing Director of the appellant Company is without legal basis. We, therefore find no reason to interfere with the order passed by the learned Judge. The writ appeal is devoid of merit and is accordingly dismissed. No costs. ---------------------------- B.PRAKASH RAO,J -------------------------- SANJAY KUMAR,J 15TH SEPTEMBER, 2009 PGS/VGSR