THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.23258 of 2008 ORDER: The petitioner was employed as Mazdoor on 24.07.2000. Thereafter, he was promoted to the post of Junior Plant Attendant in 2006 and plant Attendant in 2008. The petitioner states that on 02.09.1994, himself and one Sri P.Narsimhulu proceeded to Bandipothugal Village to attend the funeral of one of his relatives and on the way, an accident took place. The petitioner and the pillion rider received serious injuries and the latter succumbed to the injuries. Crime No.70 of 2004 was registered by Kowdipalli Police Station alleging that the petitioner was guilty of rash and negligent driving. A charge memo, dated 20.08.2008, was issued to the petitioner alleging that he suppressed the factum of being involved in the crime and that the same amounts to misconduct. Punishment of reversion to the post of Junior Plant Attendant was proposed. On the ground that the petitioner did not respond to the charge sheet, respondent No.2 issued Memo, dated 06.10.2008, reverting the petitioner to the post of Junior Plant Attendant. The same is challenged in this writ petition. The petitioner contends that the punishment imposed against him is a major penalty under the Andhra Pradesh State Electricity Board Employees’ Discipline and Appeal Regulations (for short ‘the Regulations’) and the same could have been imposed only after conducting departmental enquiry. It is also stated that the facts alleged against him even if true do not constitute misconduct. The respondents filed a counter-affidavit stating that the impugned order came to be passed, since the petitioner did not respond to the charge memo. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. The petitioner was issued a charge memo on 20.08.2008. The allegation against him is that he did not bring to the notice of the authorities about his involvement in Crime No.70 of 2004 registered under Sections 337 and 304-A I.P.C. by Kowdipalli Police Station. The Crime was registered on 03.09.2004 and the charge memo came to be issued four years later. In the charge memo itself, the punishment of reversion from the cadre of Plant Attendant to Junior Plant Attendant was mentioned. The petitioner states that he was incapacitated from submitting the explanation. Respondent No.2 issued the impugned memo proposing the punishment. Regulation 5 of the Regulations enlists the penalties that can be imposed upon its employees. Reduction to a lower rank in the seniority list or to a lower post or to a lower stage in the time scale occurs in Clause (iv) thereof. Regulation 10 of the Regulations prescribes the procedure to be followed before the punishments or penalties are imposed. Clause (2) (a) of Regulation 10 of the Regulations directs that whenever the punishment provided for under Regulation 5 (iv) is proposed to be imposed, an Enquiry Officer who shall be superior in rank to the delinquent official shall be appointed to conduct an enquiry. The procedure to be followed during the course of enquiry, and subsequent thereto is prescribed in detail. In the instant case, the punishment proposed against the petitioner is the one under Regulation 5 (iv) of the Regulations. Admittedly, no Enquiry Officer was appointed, much less, the other procedure was followed. Straightaway, the impugned memo was issued, imposing penalty. The fact that the petitioner did not submit his explanation to the charge memo does not absolve respondent No.2 from necessitating to appoint an Enquiry Officer. Hence, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned memo is set aside. There shall be no order as to costs. ______________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY,J Dt:01.07.2010. Kdl