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 MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 5998 of 2008 Between: Md.Jamieel S/o.Md.Khaleel O/o. DE/Elecl., (O&C), Northern Power Distribution Company of AP Ltd., Kamareddy, Niizamabad District. ... PETITIONER AND 1 Northern Power Distribution Company of AP Ltd., Rep. by its Chairman and Managing Director, Opp: REC Petrol Pump, Subedari, Hanamkonda, Warangal 2 The Superintending Engineer/Operation, Northern Power Distribution Company of AP Ltd., Nizamabad. 3 The Divisional Engineer/Elecl., O&C Division, Northern Power Distribution Company of AP Ltd., Kamareddy, Nizamabad 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 a writ or order or direction, especially one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus: i. declare the proceeding No. SE/OP/NZB/Adm.E2/F.No.1421/07-12 dt. 5-1-2008 issued by the 2nd respondent as illegal, arbitrary without jurisdiction and set aside the same in so far as petitioner is concerned. ii. consequently direct the respondents to promote the petitioner as UDC, duly granting all other consequential benefits. iii. and pass such other order or orders. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.K.VASUDEVA REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.: P.R.BALARAMI REDDY(SC FOR AP TRANSCO) The Court made the following : O R D E R: The petitioner is working as Lower Division Clerk, in the 1st respondent Company. As part of his duty, he scrutinized an application filed by one T.Swamy S/o.Late Yellaiah, for the purpose of providing employment, on compassionate grounds. Alleging that the petitioner failed to properly ascertain the genuineness of the certificates filed by the applicant, the 2nd respondent issued a Memo, dated 23.4.2007, requiring the petitioner to explain as to why the punishment of stoppage of two increments, with cumulative, effect shall not be imposed upon him. The petitioner submitted his explanation on 20.6.2007. The 2nd respondent issued a Memo, dated 31.12.2007, cancelling the show-cause memo dated 23.4.2007. Thereafter, the 2nd respondent issued proceedings, dated 5.1.2008, appointing an inquiry officer and initiating disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner. The same is challenged in this writ petition. The petitioner contends that he was issued a show-cause notice, proposing a punishment, and on consideration of the explanation submitted by him, the 2nd respondent had cancelled the show-cause memo. According to the petitioner, the matter has assumed finality, and there is no legal or factual basis for the 2nd respondent, to issue the impugned proceedings dated 5.1.2008. On behalf of the respondents, a counter affidavit is filed. It is stated that the earlier show-cause memo was on the basis of a vigilance enquiry, and since it was found that the matter had several ramifications, it was proposed to conduct departmental enquiry. Sri K.Vasudeva Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the 2nd respondent has no jurisdiction to reopen the matter, once the show-cause memo issued by himself, was cancelled. He contends that merely because there is change in the incumbency in the office of 2nd respondent, the proceedings, which assumed finality, cannot be reopened. Sri P.R. Balarami Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, submits that the then Superintending Engineer had issued a show-cause memo, proposing a major penalty, without conducting any domestic enquiry, and on noticing that the matter was not properly enquired into, at the departmental level, the present show-cause memo is issued. He contends that the petitioner can put forward all his contentions and prove his innocence, in the disciplinary proceedings. The application of one Mr.T.Swamy, for providing employment on compassionate grounds, on account of death of one Mr.Yellaiah, an Ex-Lineman, was processed by the petitioner to a substantial extent, and the same has resulted in issuance of appointment order, dated 29.8.2006. Subsequently, it was found that the certificates produced by him were not genuine. Therefore, vide memo, dated 20.11.2006, the Chief Engineer directed the 2nd respondent, to keep the order of appointment, in abeyance. Vigilance enquiry was conducted. Based upon it, the petitioner was issued a show-cause memo, dated 23.4.2007. A perusal of the memo, dated 23.4.2007, discloses that though no departmental enquiry was held, punishment of stoppage of two increments with cumulative effect, was proposed, against the petitioner. The procedure was totally defective. The question of proposing of punishment would have arisen, if only the 2nd respondent recorded finding as to the misconduct, on the part of the petitioner. A serious defect was noticed in the show-cause memo dated 23.4.2007, and it was simply cancelled, vide memo dated 31.12.2007, without any reference to the explanation submitted by the petitioner, or any discussion of the facts. Therefore, it cannot be said that the allegations made against the petitioner have either been enquired into, or were given a quietus. On the other hand, the matter was kept open, and as required under the Service Regulations, departmental enquiry was initiated, not only against the petitioner, but also three other employees, duly appointing an inquiry officer through the impugned order, dated 5.1.2008. No exception can be taken to the procedure adopted by the 2nd respondent. The petitioner can put forward all his defences, in the course of departmental inquiry. This court is not inclined to interfere with the impugned memo. The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _________________ 31st March 2008 PAN