IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU WRIT PETITION NO. 11971 of 2011 Between: S.Sairam …PETITIONER AND The Chariman and Managing Director and others ....RESPONDENTS The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU WRIT PETITION NO. 11971 of 2011 O R D E R: This Writ Petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking to declare the action of the respondents in issuing Charge Memo No.CGM (HRD &Trg)/DE/DC/7-P1/2011-2, dated 21.03.2011, by Additional Joint Managing Director (HRD& Distribution), Vidyuth Soudha, Hyderabad, as arbitrary and illegal, and set aside the same and consequently direct the respondents to declare that the petitioner is eligible for promotion as Chief Engineer, Transmission, Vidyuth Soudha, Hyderabad, taking into account the provisional seniority list in the cadre of Superintending Engineers, Electrical, AP TRANSCO, Hyderabad, wherein the name of the petitioner is placed at Rank No.1 before promoting any juniors to the petitioner. 2. The brief facts are that initially in the year 1990 the petitioner joined respondents department as Assistant Engineer and later he was promoted as Superintending Engineer, Transmission in the year 2006, and completed more than two decades of service in the department. While he was working as Superintending Engineer, Rural Electrification, Vidyuth Soudha, Hyderabad, he was issued a charge memo No. CGM(HRD&Trg)/DE/DC/7-P1/2011-4, dated 21.03.2011, asking him to explain as to why a suitable disciplinary action should not be taken against him. The charges framed against the petitioner read as follows: “i) Sri S.Sairam the then SE/RE now SE/Commercial-I approached Sri B.Narasimha Goud (Expired) who claimed to be President of SC, ST, BC and Minorities Welfare Association, Hyderabad during June, 2009, with a request to influence the CMD/AP Transco for transferring as SE/TLC/Karimnagar. ii) The investigation proved that Sri B.Narasimha Goud (Expired) had created fictitious letters purportedly issued from CM’s Office with the forged signatures of Sri Jannath Hussain, IAS, the then Principal Secretary to CM and Sri M.Jagannath, MP and submitted the same at the CMD office, AP Transco on 01.08.2009 for transfer of Sri S.Sairam, SE of A.P,Transco. iii) The investigation also proved that Sri S.Sairam SE Communicated with Sri B.Narasimha Goud (expired) through his departmental cell No.9440907301 between 4.06.2009 and 09.09.2009. The above fact reveals that Sri S.Sairam Ex-SE/RE now SE/Commercial-I was in frequent touch with Sri B.Narasimha Goud (expired). iv) Further, Sri S.Sairam Ex.SE/RE now SE/Commercial-I himself admitted to investigating officer of approaching Sri B.Narasimha Goud (Expired) for seeking to influence on the management of A.P.Transco to secure favourable transfer orders.” 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that the petitioner is due for promotion as a Chief Engineer and for denying the promotion, the charge memo has been issued and hence, she prays to set aside the charge memo. 4. On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondents contended that as per Regulations only Enquiry Officer was appointed and a charge memo has been served with him; that it will not be a bar for denying the promotion; that a note will be recorded against the entry in the list and that the promotion if any given to the petitioner is subject to result of the disciplinary action and hence, there are no grounds to set aside the charge memo. 5. Admittedly, a charge memo was served on the petitioner calling for his explanation as to why suitable disciplinary action should not be ordered against him. Therefore, it is for the respondents to take appropriate decision basing on the explanation that may be given by the petitioner to proceed with conducting a regular departmental enquiry again him or not. But, however, the grievance of the petitioner herein is that by virtue of this charge memo, the promotion due to him may be denied. 6. The Andhra Pradesh State Electricity Board Service Regulations part-3(B) read as follows: (i) Allegations or complaints Shall not be a bar for considering promotion. (ii) Enquiry Officer is appointed a n d a charge sheet has been framed and served on the concerned or show cause notice proposing the punishment is issued OR under suspension OR D i s c i p l i n a ry authority has recorded on file his decision that a Prima facie case exists. Shall b e considered for promotion in their due turn and included in the list of approved candidates at appropriate place after satisfying all other requirements. A note shall however, be recorded against the entry in the list that the enlistment is subject to the result of the disciplinary case. From a perusal of above Regulations, it would clearly indicate that even if Enquiry Officer was appointed and charge memo has been served on the delinquent Officer, it would not be a bar for promotion of an employee. Therefore, the charge memo issued by the respondents will not be a bar for considering the promotion of the petitioner as Chief Engineer from the post Superintending Engineer, if he is otherwise duly eligible as per the service conditions applicable to the petitioner. 7. Therefore, there are no grounds to quash the charge memo No.CGM (HRD &Trg)/DE/DC/7-P1/2011-2, dated 21.03.2011, issued by Additional Joint Managing Director (HRD& Distribution), Vidyuth Soudha, Hyderabad. However, it is made clear that issuance of the charge memo is not a bar for considering the case of the petitioner for promotion to the post of Chief Engineer, if otherwise he is eligible. 8. With the above observation, the writ petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________ K.C.BHANU, J APRIL 26, 2010 Note: Issue wire at party’s cost. (B/o) YVL THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU WRIT PETITION NO. 11971 of 2011 26.04.2011