IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT HON'BLE SRI ANIL R. DAVE, THE CHIEF JUSTICE And HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT APPEAL NO : 733 of 2008 (Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the Order dated 12/10/2007 in WP NO : 16390 OF 2005 on the file of the High Court.) Between: The Chief General Manager (HRD), Northern Power Distribution Company Limited, Warangal, Warangal District. ..... APPELLANT AND 1 J. Jayanth Kumar, S/o Narayana, O/o. A.A.O/ERO/Town, Hanamkonda, Warangal District. 2 The Chairman & M.D., Northern Power Distribution - Company of A.P., Ltd., Warangal, Warangal District. 3 The Chief General Manager ( Expenditure), and Enquiry Officer, Northern Power Distribution Company of A.P. Ltd., Warangal, Warangal district. .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Appellant : MR.P.R.BALARAMI REDDY Counsel for the Respondents : MR.J.RAMACHANDRA RAO The Court made the following : HON'BLE SRI ANIL R. DAVE, THE CHIEF JUSTICE And HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT APPEAL NO : 733 of 2008 JUDGMENT : (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice R.Subhash Reddy) This writ appeal is filed by the 1st respondent in writ petition No.16390 of 2005, aggrieved by the order, dated 12.10.2007, passed by the learned single Judge, in that writ petition. 2. The 1st respondent herein was the employee of Northern Power Distribution Company Limited, and was working as Upper Divisional Clerk at Warangal. Alleging some misconduct on his part in discharge of his duties, disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him. The disciplinary authority, after framing charges, appointed an inquiry officer to inquire into the charges levelled against the employee. The inquiry officer has submitted his report holding that the charges levelled against the 1st respondent were proved, and based on the same, the disciplinary authority, vide proceedings issued in Memo No.CGM (HRD)/GM(S)/AS(III)/J1/F, No.2073-D/04-39, dated 15.02.2005, dismissed the 1st respondent/employee from service. As against the same, the 1st respondent has filed departmental appeal before the appellate authority as per the service regulations of the Company. However, even the appellate authority, by order dated 04.06.2005, passed in Memo No.CGM (HRD)/GM(S)/AS(III)/31/J1/F, No.2073-D/04-47, rejected the appeal preferred by the 1st respondent and confirmed the order of the disciplinary authority. Questioning the order of the disciplinary authority, by which the 1st respondent was dismissed from service, as confirmed by the appellate authority, writ petition in W.P.No.16390 of 2005 was filed before this Court. 3. By impugned judgment, the learned single Judge, though did not find any flaw with the procedure followed in the inquiry conducted against the 1st respondent/employee, but however, taking into account the number of years of service rendered by the employee, and also taking into account the gravity of charges levelled against him, has set aside the order of dismissal and modified the punishment to that of compulsory retirement from service. Aggrieved by such an order of modification passed by the learned single Judge, the employer/1st respondent in the writ petition has filed this appeal. 4. We have heard the learned advocates appearing for the parties at length and perused the orders passed by the disciplinary authority as well as the appellate authority. 5. It is contended by the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the appellant that asmuch as the charges levelled against the delinquent employee were proved, the disciplinary authority, taking into account the gravity of charges, has rightly imposed the punishment of dismissal. It is submitted that the learned single Judge, though did not find any procedural lapses in the inquiry conducted against the delinquent/employee, has modified the punishment to that of compulsory retirement although there were no grounds for such an interference. It is submitted that having regard to the gravity of charges, any lesser punishment than that of dismissal from service, was not warranted. It is further submitted that in any event, this Court cannot modify the punishment imposed on the delinquent/employee, and it is for the authorities to consider the same. 6. On the other hand, it is submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the 1st respondent/writ petitioner that in the instant case, inspite of filing a detailed explanation before the disciplinary authority in response to the show cause notice, the said authority has not considered the same and simply passed the order of dismissal based on the inquiry report. It is further submitted that though the 1st respondent has availed the alternative remedy of departmental appeal as provided in the service regulations, but the appellate authority also did not consider the appeal in proper perspective and rejected it mechanically. 7. A perusal of the order passed by the appellate authority reveals that though several grounds were raised in the appeal, questioning the validity of the order passed by the disciplinary authority, the appellate authority simply reproduced the reply given by the 1st respondent/writ petitioner, and without recording any reasons on the grounds of appeal, rejected the appeal. As such, we are of the view that the appellate authority did not deal with the appeal in proper perspective, as rightly contended by the learned counsel appearing for the 1st respondent/writ petitioner. 8. Be that as it may. Whether the punishment imposed on the delinquent employee having regard to the gravity of charges, is a matter that can be gone into only by the authorities, but not by this Court. Even in cases where the punishment imposed is found to be in disproportionate to the gravity of the charges, we are of the considered opinion that such of the matters are required to be reconsidered either by the disciplinary authority or by the appellate authority, but this Court cannot substitute the quantum of punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority. Asmuch as the appellate authority has not considered various grounds raised by the 1st respondent/ writ petitioner in his appeal, we deem it appropriate that it is a fit case where the appellate authority shall reconsider the matter afresh in accordance with law. 9. For the aforesaid reasons, the appeal is allowed. The order dated 12.10.2007, passed by the learned single Judge in writ petition No.16390 of 2005, is set aside. The matter is remitted back to the departmental appellate authority for fresh consideration of the appeal and to pass appropriate orders afresh. It is open for the appellate authority to consider the grounds of appeal afresh, including the proportionality of punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority. We direct the appellate authority to dispose of the appeal as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 10. Subject to the above directions, this writ appeal is allowed with no order as to costs. _________________ ANIL R. DAVE, CJ 18th July 2008 ______________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY, J grr/ajr To 1. The Chief General Manager (HRD), Northern Power Distribution Company Limited, Warangal, Warangal District. 2. The Chairman & M.D., Northern Power Distribution - Company of A.P., Ltd., Warangal, Warangal District. 3. The Chief General Manager ( Expenditure), and Enquiry Officer, Northern Power Distribution Company of A.P. Ltd., Warangal, Warangal district.