IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE EIGHTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH WRIT PETITION NO : 9244 of 2003 Between: P. Appanna S/o. Mukkalingam R/o. 4-422, Kalikrishna Nagar, Dowleshwaram, East Godavari District, Camp : Gas Turbo Power Station, Vijjeswaram, W.G.District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Andhra Pradesh Power Generation Corporation Limited (A.P.Genco), Andhra Pradesh Power Generation Corporation Ltd.,(A.P. Genco),rep. by its Chairman & M.D., Vidyut Soudha, Khairatabad, Hyderabad. 2 Andhra Pradesh Power Generation Corporation Limited,rep. by its G.M(ADM) Andhra Pradesh Power Generation Corporation Ltd., (A.P. Genco), rep. by its General Manager (ADM),Vidyut Soudha, Khairatabad, Hyderabad. .....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, order or direction, particularly a Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the 2nd Respondent in issuing Memo.No.GM(A)/DS(E)/AS(DC)/1337/B2/2001 dt. 4.4.2003 conﬁrming the order of punishment as arbitrary, illegal, injust, contrary to law, in violation of fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India and Service Rules and issue consequent directions not to give eﬀect to the same. Counsel for the Petitioner :MR.L.RAVICHANDER Counsel for the Respondent No.: MR.K.CHIDAMBARAM The Court made the following : ORDER: This writ petition has been ﬁled seeking to declare the action of the 2nd respondent, by way of issuing Writ of Mandamus, in issuing Memo No.GM(A)/DS(E)/AS(DC)/1337/B2/2001 dated 04-04-2003 conﬁrming the order of punishment, as arbitrary, illegal, unjust, contrary to law in violation of fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India and Service Rules and to issue consequential directions not to give eﬀect to the same, pending disposal of the writ petition. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was appointed as a Line Man and joined duty on 22-05-1989 in the erstwhile A.P. State Electricity Board. Thereafter, he was converted to the post of Sub-Overseer on 20-06-1992 and later on he was promoted to the post of Sub-Engineer, in the month of September, 1992. While the things stood thus, the petitioner was issued a charge memo dated 29-04-1998 on the ground that he was responsible for releasing of 18 Agricultural Services during the ban period in May, 1996 and the same is in violation of Regulation 3(1), 4(xxvi), 4(xli) of APSEB Employees Conduct Regulations and Regulation 6(v), 6(xxxi) of APSEB Employees Discipline and Appeal Regulations. In response to the said charge memo, the petitioner submitted his explanation on 23-05-1998 stating that in releasing the 18 Agricultural Services during the ban period in May, 1996 he had no role to play and the Additional Assistant Engineer is the competent authority for releasing the Agricultural Services and his duty was to receive the deposits as per the instructions of the Additional Assistant Engineer. Thereafter, an enquiry was conducted. After the enquiry, he was issued a show cause notice as to why the punishment of reduction to a lower post for a period of three years should not be imposed upon him, in response to which, the petitioner submitted his explanation on 11-11-2001. The Joint Managing Director (Rev.&HRD) vide proceedings in Memo No.GM(Per)/DE/DC/51-Q2/99-5, dated 10-10-2002 imposed the punishment of reduction to a lower post for a period of three years. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner preferred statutory appeal on 29-12-2002 and the 1st respondent vide Memo No.GM(A)/DS(E)/ AS(DC)/1337/B2/2001, dated 04-04-2003 rejected the appeal. The impugned order dated 04-04-2003 reads as under: “In the reference ﬁrst cited ﬁnal orders were issued by APTRANSCO to Sri P. Appanna, Ex Sub-Engineer (now AEE/GTPS/Vijjeswaram) awarding with the punishment of “reversion to lower post for a period of 3 years” on the allegation of release of Agricultural Services during the ban period of 1996 without following proper procedure without collecting security deposits etc., and giving false information about the actual date of release of the agricultural services. 2. Aggrieved by the above punishment, Sri P. Appanna, Ex-Sub-Engineer (now AAE/GTPS/Vijjeswaram) submitted an appeal for exoneration of punishment awarded to him. 3. Sri P. Appanna, Ex-Sub-Engineer (now AAE/GTPS/ Vijjeswaram) has put forth the following points for consideration. “He has stated that the job of releasing of new services is the work of the section oﬃcer/AAE and the Sub-Engineer is in no way concerned with that. He has been penalized for the action of the section oﬃcer. He has further stated that though the issue was one i.e. release of service, the same was splitted into six charges which is against the norms laid down in AP Civil Service Classiﬁcation Control and Appeal Regulations. Since he was only a Sub-Engineer then, the question of releasing the service connections does not arise as he was not competent to issue the same. The service connection register contains all the recorded information. He had no role to pay in the instant case and there is no intentional mistake on his part. He has ﬁnally requested to review on explanation on realistic basis and render justice by exonerating him from the punishment awarded to him.” 4. The CMD/APGENCO/Vidyut Soudha/ Hyderabad has carefully examined the appeal of Sri P. Appanna, Ex-Sub-Engineer/Opn/Kothuru /Srikakulam division (now AAE/Elec./GTPS/ Vijjeswaram) and found that the appeal does not merit consideration and therefore decided to reject it. 5. Accordingly, the appeal of Sri P. Appanna, AAE/Elec., is rejected.” Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that it is a speciﬁc case of the petitioner that in releasing the 18 Agricultural Services during the ban period in May 1996 he had no role to play and the Additional Assistant Engineer is the competent authority for releasing the Agricultural Services. The duty of the petitioner was only to receive the deposits as per the instructions of the concerned oﬃcer. Therefore, the petitioner was not at all liable for the charge framed against him that he failed to maintain integrity and devotion to duty, acted dishonestly and exhibited misconduct and violated the Regulations. He further submits that the appellate authority rejected the appeal holding that the appeal does not merit for consideration. Therefore, the impugned order is not a reasoned order and it is in violation of principles of natural justice. Therefore, the same is liable to be set aside. On the other hand, the learned standing counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents does not dispute that the impugned order does not contain any reason rejecting the claim of the petitioner. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions made by the learned counsel on either side, this Court is of the opinion that the impugned order is liable to be set aside, as non-est. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of setting aside the impugned order dated 04-04-2003 and the matter is remitted to the 1st respondent, Chairman and Managing Director, Vidyut Soudha, for reconsideration of the case of the petitioner and to pass appropriate orders, in accordance with law, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs. _________________________ JUSTICE G. CHANDRAIAH Date: 08-09-2008 SKM/LSK