IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 17731 of 2008 Between: 1 G. Krishna Reddy, S/o. Laxmi Reddy, Office of Sub-Electricity Revenue Officer, Podalakur, Podalakur Mandal, Sri Potti Ramulu, Nellore District. 2 N. Venkateswarlu, s/o. Venkaiah, Electricity Revenue Officer, Nellore Town, Sri Potti Ramulu, Nellore District. 3 K. Narayana Rao, S/o. Jangaiah, Sub-Electricity Revenue Officer, Podalakur, Podalakur Mandal, Sri Potti Ramulu, Nellore District. ..... PETITIONERS AND 1 The Chairman and Managing Director, AP TRANSCO, Vidyuth Soudha, Khairabad, Hyderabad. 2 The Chief General Manager (Expenditure), Andhra Pradesh Southern Power Distribution Company Ltd. Tirupati, Chittoor District. 3 The Superintending Engineer (Operations), Andhra Pradesh Southern Power Distribution Company Ltd. Operation Circle, Nellore, Sri Potti Ramulu, Chittoor District. 4 The Assistant Accounts Officer, Sub-Electricity Revenue Officer, Podalakur, Podalakur Mandal, Sri Potti Sri Ramulu, Nellore District. 5 The Assistant Accounts Officer, Electricity Revenue Officer, Nellore Town, Sri Potti Sri Ramulu, Nellore 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 or order or direction, particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the respondents in recovering the amounts from the respective pay of the petitioners 1 and 3 alleging that in the year 1990 the petitioners pay was wrongly fixed in the erstwhile Rural Electrical Co-operative Society, Atmakur is arbitrary, unreasonable and violative of principles of Natural Justice and accordingly set aside the impugned order passed by the 2nd respondent vide Memo No. CGM/Expr./SPDCL/TPT/GM/1A/JAO-1/D.No. 707/06, dated 22-11- 2006 including the consequential order passed by the 4th respondent in respect of 1st petitioner in AAP/S.ERO/PDL/PRS/JAO/D.NO. 196/08/ DT.24-4-2008, and in respect of the 3rd petitioner vide Memo No. AAO/S.ERO/PDL/PRS/JAO/D.No. 197/08/Dt. 24-4-2008 and orders passed by the 5th respondent in respect of 2nd petitioner vide Memo NO. AAO/ERO/T/NLR/PRS.U1/D.No. 179/2007, dated 30-4- 2007 and consequently direct the respondents not to recover any amounts from the salary of the petitioners and further direct the respondents to reimburse the amounts if any recovered from the petitioners. Counsel for the Petitioners:MR.K.MURALIDHAR REDDY Counsel for the Respondents: P.R.BALARAMI REDDY(SC FOR AP TRANSCO) The Court made the following : ORDER: The petitioners were initially employed in the Rural Electricity Cooperative Society Limited, Atmakur, Nellore District. Over a period of time, the said society was liquidated and its assets and liabilities were merged with the A.P. Southern Power Distribution Company Limited, the second respondent herein, in terms of G.O.Ms.No.125, dated 15.10.2001. In the year 2006, it was noticed that the petitioners were extended certain scales of pay, beyond their entitlement during the year 1990. On that basis, the fourth respondent issued memo, dated 24.04.2008, directing the recovery of excess amount paid to petitioners 1 and 3, whereas the fifth respondent issued a show cause notice, dated 30.04.2007, to the second petitioner, as to why the said action shall not be taken against him. The said proceedings are challenged in this Writ Petition. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. Certain reasons are, no doubt, stated in the impugned memo, dated 24.04.2008, as constituting the basis for effecting recovery from the petitioner. The fact, however, remains that the petitioners were not put on notice, nor they were given an opportunity to explain as to why recovery shall not be effected against them. Therefore, the impugned proceedings are violative of principles of natural justice. On this short ground, the Writ Petition is allowed and the impugned memo, dated 24.04.2008, is set aside. It is, however, left open to respondents 2 and 3, to issue show cause notices to petitioners 1 and 2. On receipt of notices, the said petitioners as well as the second petitioner herein shall be entitled to submit explanation and the respondents, in turn, shall pass appropriate, orders on consideration of the same. There shall be no order as to costs. ____________________ Dt.18.08.2008 L.NARASIMHA REDDY, J GJ