HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY Writ Petition No.522 of 2005 Date: June 15, 2010 Between: R.K. Rajendraprasad, S/o. R. Kalappa, Age: 48 years, Occ: dismissed as LDC in APSEB, presently Southern Power Distribution Co. of A.P. Ltd., Tirupathi, Operation Circle, Tirupathi, R/o. H.No.6-2-125, Al/T.Nagar, Tirupathi, Chittoor District … Petitioner And Southern Power Distribution Co. of A.P. Ltd., (SPDCL), Tirupathi, Represented by its Chairman and Managing Director, Tirupathi, Chittoor District, and two others … Respondents Order: This writ petition is filed challenging the proceedings dated 12-12-1996, in Memo No.SE/O.TPT/POADM.Ul.F.SF. /D.No.1051/96, issued by the third respondent-Superintending Engineer, Operation, SPDCL, Tirupathi, dismissing the petitioner herein from service on the proven misconduct, as confirmed by the second respondent/appellate authority by proceedings dated 03-11-2004 in Memo No.CE/O&M/TPT/PO/ADM/F.DC/D.No.3604/04. 2. Earlier also, the petitioner preferred an appeal against the order dated 12-12-1996, which was disposed of by the appellate authority on 03-08-2004. But, the said order was questioned by filing W.P.No.18374 of 1998 mainly on the ground that the authority that passed the order dated 12-12-1996 was promoted and after promotion the very same authority considered the appeal and rejected the same. The said writ petition was allowed and the matter was remitted to the appellate authority for disposal afresh. Pursuant thereto, the appeal filed by the petitioner was reconsidered and rejected by proceedings dated 03-11-2004. 3. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are: The petitioner is a graduate in Commerce. He was appointed, at first instance, as a Police Constable in Kurnool District with effect from 30-09-1985. During the year 1989, disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him and he was placed under suspension on certain allegations by order dated 01- 07-1989. In the meanwhile, pursuant to the notification issued by erstwhile Andhra Pradesh State Electricity Board, the petitioner applied for appointment to the post of L.D.C., and he was called for interview before the selection committee and was appointed as L.D.C., on 19-07-1989. Pursuant to his appointment, he joined in the service of the Electricity Board as L.D.C., on 04-08-1989. In view of initiation of disciplinary proceedings in the Police Department, pursuant to his appointment as Police Constable, he was removed from service of the Police Department by order dated 02-07-1990. When the petitioner was working as L.D.C., it came to light that he was already employed in the Police Department and he suppressed the said fact in the attestation form which was filled-in by him at the time of recruitment. Pursuant thereto, disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him and enquiry was conducted by the respondents. The charge framed against the petitioner in the disciplinary proceedings reads as under: “Sri R.K. Rajendra Prasad, LDC of Opn.Circle/Tirupati has suppressed the facts by not furnishing the particulars of his appointment as Police Constable and removal from service in the Police Department in the attestation forms submitted by him.” In the enquiry, the petitioner denied the said charge and contested the proceedings on the ground that column No.11 in the attestation form itself is vague as it does not suggest the candidates to disclose any information of employment in other departments. The enquiry officer who conducted the enquiry has submitted report recording a finding that the only charge framed against the petitioner was proved. Based on such finding, the disciplinary authority, i.e. the Superintending Engineer issued show-cause notice and passed order dated 12-12-1996 dismissing the petitioner from service as L.D.C. As against the same, the petitioner carried the matter in appeal. On earlier occasion, the order, which was passed by the appellate authority, was questioned by the petitioner before this court in W.P.No.18374 of 1998 and the said writ petition was allowed and the matter was remitted to the appellate authority to consider the appeal afresh. Pursuant thereto, the appellate authority has re-considered the appeal and dismissed the same by proceedings dated 03-11-2004, recording the following finding: “In particular, the delinquent tried to substantiate his lapse of suppression of facts in the attestation form on the plea that column (11) of the attestation form is not specific. His contention in this aspect is not tenable because the attestation form is a common one which is in practice since a long time and which is filled by all the candidates who were appointed by this organization. There is no ambiguity as pointed out by the delinquent. It clearly denotes that by throwing the blame the delinquent is tried to conceal the fact of his indulgence in grave misconduct and pendency of the enquiry in the Police Department.” In view of dismissal of the appeal, confirming the punishment of dismissal from service, the present writ petition is filed challenging the order of the disciplinary authority as well as of the appellate authority. 4. It is submitted by Sri S. Chandraiah, learned counsel for the petitioner, that there is no suppression of facts on the part of the petitioner and he has declared information as per various columns provided in the attestation form. It is submitted that in absence of any requirement of furnishing the employment particulars in departments other than A.P.S.E.B., it was not necessary to disclose any information with regard to employment of the petitioner in Police Department. It is also submitted that no action was taken within the period of probation and as much as the petitioner was appointed in the year 1989, no action could have been taken after this length of time. It is further submitted that if the order of dismissal is allowed, the petitioner will be put to great hardship, as he did not contest the adverse proceedings issued against him in Police Department. Further submission of the learned counsel is that the punishment of dismissal imposed against the petitioner is shockingly disproportionate to the gravity of the charge framed against him. 5. On the other hand, it is submitted by Sri P. Balarami Reddy, learned standing counsel appearing for the respondents, that at the time of recruitment to the post of L.D.C., candidates were required to fill in the attestation form which contains various particulars of the candidates and also the details of previous employment. It is submitted that from column No.11 of the attestation form it is clear that if the candidates are employed earlier, they have to disclose the same by giving the details of such employment. It is submitted that the petitioner suffered disciplinary proceedings in the Police Department and suppressed the fact of his earlier employment; and secured job in A.P.S.E.B. It is further submitted that as much as there is material suppression on the part of the petitioner, which amounts to misconduct, within the meaning of the disciplinary and appeal regulations, and in view of the findings recorded by the enquiry officer, where the charge framed against him was proved, orders were passed by the disciplinary authority dismissing him from service. It is also submitted that in view of suppression of information regarding his earlier appointment and the disciplinary proceedings initiated against him, the punishment of dismissal imposed on the petitioner cannot be said to be shockingly disproportionate to the gravity of the charge. 6. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned standing counsel appearing for the respondents and perused a copy of the attestation form filled in by the petitioner at the time of his appointment to the post of L.D.C. in the service of A.P.S.E.B. It is apposite to refer column No.11 of the attestation form, which reads as under: “ If you have at any time been employed. Give details: Designation of post held or description of work Period From To Full Address of the office/firm or institution Further, there is a declaration in the very same form, which is signed by the petitioner. Clause-4 of the said declaration reads as under: “I am also fully aware that if it comes to notice at any time during my service that false information has been furnished or that there has been suppression of factual information in the attestation form my services would be liable to be terminated solely on this ground.” 7. Although it is the case of the petitioner that in view of language used in column No.11 of the attestation form, there is no need to disclose the previous employment particulars of the candidates in other departments, but, from a reading of column No.11 of the attestation form, it is very clear that if the applicants were employed at any time previously in other departments, they are required to give such information and also the full address of the company/firm or institution. Hence, the defence of the petitioner to the effect that there is no need to give previous employment particulars, if the applicants were previously employed in any other department other then APSEB, was not rightly accepted in the disciplinary proceedings. Though it is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that there was delay on the part of the respondents in initiating disciplinary proceedings, but, it is to be seen that it is a case where the petitioner suppressed information with regard to his previous employment and initiation of disciplinary proceedings against him. Soon after the said facts came to the light of the respondents, they have initiated proceedings. 8. It is to be noted that by the time the petitioner was appointed in the service of the respondents-corporation by order dated 19-07-1989, he was already under suspension in Police Department, in view of the order of suspension dated 01-07-1989 and later removed from service by order dated 02-07-1990 after his appointment as L.D.C., and joining into the service of the respondents-corporation on 04-08-1989. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents, it is stated that the Superintendent of Police has informed the respondents by letter dated 13-11-1995 that the petitioner had illegal intimacy with one Smt.P.Satyavathi, tribal girl of Dhommagudem, Khammam District and he was suspended from service on the ground that he allowed 14 accused persons to commit an offence punishable under Sections 147, 148, 435, and 436 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code. It is evident that the petitioner, by suppressing material information, i.e. he was already employed in Police Department and that disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him, secured employment in the erstwhile A.P.S.E.B. When the said issue came to the light of the respondents in view of the letter dated 13-11-1995 addressed by the Superintendent of Police, disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him by the respondents and after conducting enquiry, order of dismissal from service was passed on 12-12-1996. Though there was some delay in initiation of disciplinary proceedings, the same cannot be attributed to the respondents in view of suppression of facts by the petitioner himself and soon after the respondents came to know about the information suppressed by the petitioner, they initiated disciplinary proceedings against him. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that the punishment of dismissal from service imposed against the petitioner is shockingly disproportionate to the gravity of charge cannot be accepted for the reason that at the time of entry into service there is serious misconduct on the part of the petitioner in Police Department and he was suspended from service. Had the information with regard to previous employment of the petitioner and initiation of disciplinary proceedings against him was known to the respondents, probably the respondents would have refrained from appointing the petitioner in view of his antecedents. As the petitioner had secured employment by suppressing material facts and made false declaration in the attestation form, which is indisputably signed by him, the punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority cannot at all be said to be shockingly disproportionate to the gravity of the charge. The petitioner suppressed material information that he was already in the service of Police Department and disciplinary proceedings were pending against him at the time when he gained employment in the respondents-corporation, which no doubt, is a serious misconduct. The guilt of the petitioner has been validly found and he was dismissed from service by the disciplinary authority in view of serious misconduct. Even the appellate authority has considered the grounds raised by the petitioner and rejected by recording valid findings. Hence, I find no ground to interfere with the impugned orders, in this petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 9. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. _____________________ (R. SUBHASH REDDY, J) June 15, 2010 MRR