IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. ANIL R. DAVE, THE CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY THURSDAY, THE NINETEENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER, TWO THOUSAND NINE WRIT APPEL No.1893 of 2001 (Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against order dated 26.07.2001 in W.P. No.6083 of 1993 on the file of the High Court). Between: N. Venkateswara Rao S/o. Rattaih Aged about 55 years, R/o. Nandigama, Krishna District. … Appellant And 1. A.P. State Electricity Board, rep., by its Member Secretary, Vidyut Soudha, Hyderabad. 2. Superintending Engineer, Operation, A.P. State Electricity Board, Vijayawada, Krishna District. 3. Senior Accounts Officer (The Enquiry Officer) (RE) Office of the Chief Engineer, Vidyut Soudha, Hyderabad. …Respondents. Counsel for the Appellant : Smt. N. Saraswathi for Sri V. Venkataramana This Court made the following: THE HON'BLE MR. ANIL R. DAVE, THE CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT APPEAL No. 1893 of 2001 JUDGMENT:- (Per Sri C.V. Nagarjuna Reddy, J) This Writ Appeal has been filed against order, dated 26.07.2001, in Writ Petition No.6083 of 1993, whereby the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellant. During the pendency of the appeal, appellant No.1 died. His wife has brought herself on record as appellant No.2. For convenience, appellant No.1 is referred to as “the employee”. The employee, at the relevant time, was working as Assistant Accounts Officer with respondent Nos.1 Board (for short, “the Board”). The Board having noticed large scale defalcation of amounts to a tune of Rs.4,30,000/-, appointed enquiry officer to initiate disciplinary proceedings against the employee. The enquiry officer framed seven charges and issued a charge memo to the employee, to which he submitted his explanation. After considering the explanation submitted by the employee, a detailed departmental enquiry was conducted and a show cause notice was issued to him. After considering the explanation submitted by the employee, the Chairman of the Board passed order dated 04.06.1990, whereby the employee was dismissed from service. The said order was questioned in Writ Petition No.6083 of 1993. Before the learned Single Judge, it was contended on behalf of the employee that the order passed by the Chairman was vitiated on account of the fact that being the appellate authority, he had himself acted as disciplinary authority. It was pleaded that by exercise of the disciplinary power by the appellate authority, the employee was denied the remedy of appeal. The learned Single Judge repelled the said contention by placing reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Balbir Chand vs. Food Corporation of India[1]. At the hearing, the learned counsel for appellant No.2 reiterated the submission made before the learned Single Judge and submitted that the Chairman, being the appellate authority, ought not to have exercised the jurisdiction vested in the disciplinary authority. This question is no longer res integra in view of the recent judgment of the Supreme Court in Government of Andhra Pradesh and another vs. N.Ramanaiah[2], wherein a similar issue was considered and on the review of the entire case law, it was held that the appellate authority, being superior to the disciplinary authority, is not precluded from exercising the power vested in the disciplinary authority, as there is no legal or constitutional bar for exercising such a power, more so when the service regulations empower the superior authority to exercise the power of the disciplinary authority. The Apex Court relied upon Rule 14 of the extant Rules in that case, which authorized either the appointing authority or any authority to which it is subordinate to impose any of the penalties stipulated in the Rules. It is not in dispute that a similar provision exists in the Rules pertaining to the Board, whereby the Chairman, being the superior authority, is empowered to exercise the function of the disciplinary authority. In this view of the matter, we find no merit in the submission of the learned counsel for the employee. As no other contention has been advanced, we do not see any ground to interfere with the order passed by the learned Single Judge. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. ANIL R. DAVE, CJ C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Date: 19.11.2009 ES [1] AIR 1997 SC 2229 [2] (2009) 7 SCC 165