IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU WRIT PETITION NO.27194 of 2007 and CONTEMPT CASE NO.610 of 2008 1. WRIT PETITION NO.27194 of 2007 Between: Chalamalla Sambasiva Rao, S/o. Nagaiah, Electricity Revenue Officer/APTRANSCO, Nandigama, Krishna District, R/o. D.No. 1-30, Markandeya Bazar, Jaggaiahpet, Krishna District. ...PETITIONER AND 1 The Chairman & Managing Director, APSPDCL (A.P. Southern Power Distribution Company Limited, Tirupathi., Chittoor District. 2 The Superintending Engineer, Southern Power Distribution Company of A.P. Limited, Operation Circle, Vijayawada. 3 The Chief General Manager /HRD, Southern Power Distribution Company of A.P. Limited, Tirupathi. ...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 a Writ of Mandamus, or any other appropriate Writ, Order or direction declaring the orders in Memo No. CGM/HRD/DS/AS-III/PO(DC)/F.No. 1/D.No. 661/07, dated 19-5-2007 issued by the Chief General Manager/HRD, Southern Power Distribution Company of A.P. Limited, Tirupathi is wholly illegal, arbitrary, violative of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India, apart from being violative of principles of Natural Justice and consequently declare that the Petitioner is entitled for reinstatement into service with all consequential benefits. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.RAVI KONDAVEETI Counsel for the Respondents: P.R.BALARAMI REDDY(SC FOR AP TRANSCO) 2. CONTEMPT CASE NO.610 of 2008 (Contempt Case U/s. 10 to 12 of Contempt of Courts Act to punish the Respondents herein for violating, disobeying the Order of the High Court dated 20.12.2007 in W.P.M.P.No.35526 of 2007 in W.P.No.27194 of 2007. Between: Chalamalla Sambasiva Rao, S/o. Nagaiah, Electricity Revenue Officer/APTRANSCO, Nandigama, Krishna District, R/o. D.No. 1-30, Markandeya Bazar, Jaggaiahpet, Krishna District. ...PETITIONER AND 1 Sri V.C. Malleswara Rao Chairman & Managing Director, Limited) Tirupathi., Chittoor District. 2 Sri Y,Venkata Raju Superintending Engineer, Operation Circle, Vijayawada. 3 Sri R.V.Chalapathi Chief General Manager /HRD, Tirupathi. ...RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.RAVI KONDAVEETI Counsel for the Respondents: P.R.BALARAMI REDDY(SC FOR AP TRANSCO) The Court made the following: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU WRIT PETITION NO.27194 of 2007 and CONTEMPT CASE NO.610 of 2008 COMMON ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed seeking a Mandamus declaring the order dated 19.05.2007 passed in Memo No.CGM/HRD/DS/AS- III/PO (DC)/F.No.1/D.No.661/07 by the Chief General Manager/HRD, Southern Power Distribution Company of A.P. Limited, Tirupati, as arbitrary and illegal and violative of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India, apart from violative of principles of natural justice and consequently to declare that the petitioner is entitled for reinstatement into service with all consequential benefits. According to the petitioner, he was appointed as L.D.C. in the year 1979 in A.P. State Electricity Board and posted at Guntur. While so, a criminal case was foisted against him for the offence punishable under Section 409 of the Indian Penal Code and he was kept under suspension on 18.05.1999. Initially, learned Additional Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Nandigama, by his judgment dated 31.07.2001 in C.C.No.126 of 1999, convicted the petitioner and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for a period three years and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for nine months. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner preferred an appeal in Crl.A.No.103 of 2001 before the learned IX Additional District & Sessions Judge, FTC, Krishna, Machilipatnam. When the appeal was pending, the Superintending Engineer, Southern Power Distribution Company of A.P.Limited, Operation Circle, Vijayawada, by Memo No.SE/O/VJA/Adm.U4/D.No.323/2003 dated 10.02.2003, dismissed the petitioner from service with effect from 31.07.2001 i.e., from the date of judgment of the learned Additional Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Nandigama. Subsequently, Crl.A.No.103 of 2001, pending before the learned IX Additional District & Sessions Judge, FTC, Krishna, Machilipatnam, ended in acquittal on 20.10.2005. It is the petitioner’s case that apart from the criminal case, departmental enquiry was also initiated against him by appointing an Enquiry Officer. However, the enquiry could not be conducted and in view of the fact that he was dismissed from service in view of criminal case, since the Criminal Appeal ended in acquittal, he approached the respondents seeking reinstatement and conducting an enquiry into the alleged misconduct, if necessary. Thereafter, it seems that the petitioner was not reinstated and not paid subsistence allowance. An enquiry was conducted and the impugned proceedings dated 19.05.2007 were passed dismissing the petitioner from service. Hence, the petitioner filed the present Writ Petition. It is not necessary to go into the details. After hearing the learned counsel on either side, it came to light that the report of the Enquiry Officer was not furnished to the petitioner before passing the impugned order. In this regard, learned counsel appearing for the respondents, on instructions, stated that there was no such procedure followed by the respondents. Under those circumstances and on this ground alone, the Writ Petition is liable to be allowed and the impugned order is liable to be set aside. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 19.05.2007 is set aside and the Writ Petition is allowed leaving liberty to the respondents to conduct a detailed enquiry, if necessary. Further, it is made clear that the petitioner is entitled to subsistence allowance from 20.10.2005 i.e., from the date of passing of acquittal order in Crl.A.No.103 of 2001 till the enquiry is completed in this regard. In view of the above judgment, the Contempt Case is closed. _____________ (C.V.RAMULU, J) 16th December 2008 RRB