IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE THIRTY FIRST DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No. 6047 of 2008 Between: V.Raja Ratnam, S/o.Srinivasulu, R/o.Pakala, Pakala Mandal,Chittoor District ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Southern Power Distribution company of A.P.Ltd., Rep by its Chief General Manager,HRD, Tirupati, Tirupati,Chittoor District. 2 Southern Power Distribution company of A.P.Ltd., Rep by its Superintending Enginer, Tirupati, Tirupati,Chittoor District. .....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 Writ, Order ,direction of the writ more Particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the proceeding of the 1st respondent in Memo No.CGM/HRD/DS/As- III/PO/(DCO/F.NO.83/D.NO.1917/07 dated 18-8-2007 rejecting the appeal and confirming the 2nd respondent order dated 25-8-2006 as illegal, arbitrary, and unjust and consequently direct the respondents to pay the all the areas and fix the pay by duly adding the increments to the petitioner. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.B.SHIVA KUMAR Counsel for the Respondents: P.R.BALARAMI REDDY(SC FOR AP TRANSCO) The Court made the following ORDER: The petitioner is functioning as Sub-Inspector of Revenue Cashier in the first respondent company. He was issued a charge memo, dated 17.06.2006, alleging that he did not attend to the duties regularly on certain dates and that he is not at all attending for the collection for a long time in the area. Reference was made to an item of news in a local daily. The petitioner submitted his explanation on 11.07.2007, denying the allegations. He has furnished the facts and figures, apart from referring to other circumstances. Through his order, dated 25.08.2006, the second respondent imposed a punishment of postponement of one increment without cumulative effect. The same is challenged in this writ petition. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned standing counsel for the respondents. In the departmental proceedings initiated by an employer proposing to impose minor penalty, domestic enquiry need not be conducted. It is all the more a reason why the appointing authority must state clear reasons in support of the conclusions arrived at by him. Otherwise, the very basis for the punishment would not be evident. In the instant case, two allegations were made against the petitioner, namely, he did not attend to the duty on 24th, 25th and 27th of May, 2006 at 10.45 a.m., 9.30 a.m., and 9.45 a.m. respectively and that he was irregular in collection of the bills from the customers. On receiving the show cause notice, the petitioner submitted his explanation not only stating that he attended to the duties on the dates mentioned above, but also furnished the amounts collected by him on the respective dates. As regards the news item, he offered his explanation, in detail. None of the facts mentioned by the petitioner were discussed or taken note of, in the impugned order. The second respondent has just stated that the explanation submitted by the petitioner is not satisfactory. The same does not accord with the requirement of law. The appellate authority also did not bestow its attention to the facts pleaded by the petitioner. Under these circumstances, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned order is set aside. It is, however, left open to the second respondent to pass a detailed order, referring to the explanation offered by the petitioner. There shall be no order as to costs. ______________ 31.03.2008 kdl ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{LS}