IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE FIRST DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 2335 of 2009 Between: T.Ramachandra Reddy S/o.Narayanaswamy Reddy Chittoor, Chittoor District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Chairman and Managing Director, A.P.S.P.D.C.L. Tirupati. 2 The Chief General Manager, H.R.D. A.P.S.P.D.C.L. Tirupati. 3 The Superintending Engineer, Operation, A.P.S.P.D.C.L. Tirupati. 4 The Divisional Engineer (Operation), A.P.S.P.D.C.L. Puttoor, Chittoor District. ..RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner:SRI S.D.GOWD Counsel for the respondents: SRI P.R.BALARAMI REDDY (SC FOR AP TRANSCO) The Court made the following : O R D E R: This writ petition is filed for a writ of Mandamus to set aside order dated 04-12-2007 passed by respondent No.2 and order dated 07-03-2008 passed by respondent No.1, whereby he confirmed the order of respondent No.2. The petitioner, an Additional Assistant Engineer, working in respondent No.1-Corporation, was faced with a departmental proceeding for his failure to report to duty at the transferred place. After considering the explanation of the petitioner to show cause notice dated 19-06-2007, issued by respondent No.2, the latter passed order dated 04-12-2007, awarding the punishment of postponement of one increment without cumulative effect and treating the absence of the petitioner from 01-06-2007 to 31-10-2007 as “Dies-Non”. The appeal filed by the petitioner against the said order of respondent No.2 having been rejected, he filed the present writ petition. At the hearing, Sri S.D.Gowd, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that no enquiry has been held by respondent No.2 before imposing the punishment of “Dies-Non”. Sri P.R.Balarami Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents, conceded that no enquiry was held because withholding of increment without cumulative effect is a minor penalty, which need not be preceded by an enquiry. Regulation 10 (2) (a) of the Andhra Pradesh State Electricity Board Employees’ Discipline and Appeal Regulations (for short “the Regulations”), which are adopted by respondent No.1- Corporation, mandates that in every case, where penalties enumerated in items iv, vi, vii and viii were proposed to be imposed, an enquiry has to be held in accordance with the procedure prescribed therein. From a perusal of Regulation 5 of the Regulations, it is clear that the penalty of “Dies-Non” is not the one, which is enumerated as a penalty. Therefore, such a penalty cannot be imposed upon the petitioner. If any of the major punishments is proposed to be imposed on the petitioner, the respondents shall be free to do the same, after following the procedure prescribed under Regulation 10 (2) (a) of the Regulations. Another aspect, which requires to be mentioned, is that in the show cause notice issued by respondent No.2, the penalty of “Dies-Non” has not been proposed. Unless the petitioner was put to notice of such a proposal, the said penalty ought not to have been imposed. For the above mentioned reasons, the impugned orders are set aside. Respondent No.2 is given liberty to proceed against the petitioner afresh in the light of the observations made above. The writ petition is, accordingly, allowed. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Dated 1st April, 2009 vrn