THE HON’BLE MRS JUSTICE T. MEENA KUMARI Writ Petition No. 17301 of 2007 Dated: 1-07-2010 Between T. Narsimha Reedy, s/o. Mohan Reddy, Aged about 30 years, working as Additional Assistant Engineer (Operation) Central Power Distribution Company of AP Ltd., Charminar, Hyderabad ..Petitioner And 1. The Central Power Distribution Company of AP Ltd Rep. by its Chairman & Managing Director, Singareni Bhavan, Red Hills, Lakdi-ka-pool, Hyderabad And another Respondents THE HON’BLE SMT JUSTICE T. MEENA KUMARI Writ Petition No. 17301 of 2007 ORDER : 01. This writ petition is filed seeking a writ of Mandamus to declare the memo No. GM(Per)/AS(Per)/PO(DC-II)314-C1/07-1 dated 6-7-2007 issued by the 1st respondent and consequential memo No. DEE/ENQ/APCPDCL/HYD/ F.820/ D.No. 712/2007 dated.20-7-2007 issued by 2nd respondent as illegal and arbitrary and to set–a-side the same. 2. The case of the petitioner is that while he was working at Chadarghat Section as Addl. Asst. Engineer(Operation), an enquiry was conducted vide proceedings dated. 12-11-2003 for the charges under Regulation 10(2) of APSEB Employees Discipline and Appeal Regulations and that enquiry was ended in his favour as the alleged charges against him as not proved, that on the same set of charges, another charge sheet was issued to him vide memo dated. 17-1-2006 by 2nd respondent and an enquiry officer was appointed and enquiry was conducted against him and the said enquiry also was ended in his favour that the charges alleged against him are proved incorrect. It is also the case of the petitioner that again 1st respondent got issued memo dated. 6-7-2007 appointing an enquiry officer to frame appropriate charge and to conduct detailed enquiry and basing on the charge memo the 2nd respondent issued memo dated. 20-7-2007 framing charges against him and communicated to him which relates to the same allegations that were made against him on previous occasions. It is also his case that in the instant case enquiry sought to be conducted against him on third occasion, when the earlier two enquiries have ended in his favour, and such action on the part of the respondents is not only unjustifiable but also untenable and that Regulation 10(2)(a) of APSEB Employees Discipline and Appeal Regulations as adopted by APCPDCL does not empower the respondents to conduct such repeated enquiries. Hence, he filed the present writ petition challenging the said memos issued by respondents 1 and 2. 3. It is the case of the respondents that memo dated. 20-11- 2006 certain new irregularities which have bearing against the petitioner have come to light and therefore on the basis of the preliminary report received from JMD, an enquiry officer has been appointed to conduct enquiry into charges as a fresh and it is for the petitioner to substantiate his defence in the enquiry to be conducted by 2nd respondent. It is also stated in the counter affidavit that the Chairman & Managing Director/APCPDCL has reviewed the orders and ordered for a denova enquiry afresh, which is perfectly legal and justified in the circumstances of the case. 3. The main argument advanced before this Court on behalf of petitioner is that the petitioner has been charge sheeted earlier twice on some allegations/irregularities but was exonerated after conducting enquiries and that on the same set of allegations the impugned memo has been issued to him. Questioning the same, without submitting his explanation, the present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner. 4. Having heard both counsel and upon perusing the material on record, it is noticed that the petitioner did not submit his explanation to the impugned memo/charge sheet issued by the respondents/authorities. Under the above circumstances, without going into merits of the case, as the petitioner questioned the impugned memo/charge sheet without submitting any of his explanation, this court is of the opinion that it would suffice if the petitioner is given an opportunity of submitting his explanation to the said charge memo within four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order raising all the objections that were raised in the preset writ petition. Further, it is made clear that the respondents are at liberty to proceed with the enquiry in accordance with law if they are not satisfied with such explanation offered by the petitioner. With the above observations this writ petition is dismissed. The interim suspension granted earlier shall stand vacated. No costs. _____________________ T. MEENA KUMARI, J Dt. 1.7.2010 kvrk THE HON’BLE MRS JUSTICE T. MEENA KUMARI Writ Petition No. 17301 of 2007 Dated: 1-7-2010