IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH W.P.No.25738 of 2003 Between: V.Nageswara Rao … Petitioner And The Superintending Engineer Operation Circle, A.P. Eastern Power Distribution Company Limited Eluru, West Godavari District and others … Respondents THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G. CHANDRAIAH W.P. No.25738 of 2003 ORDER: This writ petition has been filed seeking for issuance of Writ of Mandamus declaring the proceedings in Memo No.SE/O/ELR/DE(T)/PO/Adm/U4/F.61/D.No.C369/03, dated 05.07.2003 and the consequential proceedings of the 1st respondent in Memo No.SE/O/ELR/DE(T)/PO/Adm/JAO/U4/ F.61/D.No.C370/03, dated 05.07.2003, as illegal arbitrary and unconstitutional and to set aside the same. The case of the petitioner, in brief, is that he joined in the service of the respondent’s Company on 01.06.1972 as Helper and got promoted as Assistant Lineman on 14.04.1981. While the things stood thus, the 2nd respondent placed him under suspension vide proceedings dated 13.09.2000 on the ground that he produced a fake S.S.C. certificate claiming promotion as Lineman. The Divisional Engineer, Visakhapatnam, was appointed as an Enquiry Officer and after conducting enquiry into the matter he submitted a report on 09.05.2001. Pending finalisation of the disciplinary proceedings, the petitioner was reinstated into service on 27.05.2001. Thereafter, after considering the explanation offered by the petitioner, the 2nd respondent vide proceedings dated 16.08.2002 imposed the punishment of stoppage of four increments with cumulative effect from the next increment that falls due after the date of issuance of the order, and the period of suspension from 14.09.2000 F.N., to 26.05.2001 A.N., was treated as suspension limiting the payment of subsistence allowance already paid during the period and got implemented the same. It is further submitted that after a lapse of nearly one year, the 1st respondent vide proceedings dated 05.07.2003 cancelled the orders of punishment passed against him vide proceedings dated 16.08.2002 and appointed the Divisional Engineer/Enquires, Visakhapatnam as Enquiry Officer to enquire into the very same allegations of production of fake S.S.C. certificate for ensuring promotion vide separate proceedings dated 05.07.2003. Based on the same, the 3rd respondent is taking further steps to conduct enquiry once again, asking him to submit explanation, through his letter dated 11.11.2003. Hence, the present writ petition is filed questioning the impugned order on the ground that it is nothing but victimization, violative of principles of natural justice and unconstitutional. No counter has been filed. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that for the allegation of production of fake S.S.C. certificate, the petitioner was already imposed punishment vide proceedings dated 16.08.2002 as aforesaid and thereafter, after a lapse of one year, without issuing any notice to the petitioner, proceedings dated 16.08.2002, imposing punishment to the petitioner, was cancelled and appointed Enquiry Officer vide proceedings dated 05.07.2003, which is under challenge and the same is against the principles of natural justice. He further submitted that against the same allegation, a criminal case was also registered and that was ended in acquittal. Now the petitioner is retired from service and he was not paid any retirement benefits. Heard the learned counsel and perused the material on record. Admittedly, the petitioner was an employee of the respondent’s Company and he was punished on the ground that he produced a fake S.S.C. certificate. After a lapse of one year, it is unreasonable to cancel the order of punishment that was already affected and to conduct fresh enquiry, without issuing any notice to the petitioner is absolutely against the principles of natural justice. Therefore, this Court is of the opinion that the impugned orders dated 05.07.2003 are illegal and liable to be set aside. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions made by the learned counsel, the impugned orders dated 05.07.2003 are set aside and the writ petition is allowed. Further, as the petitioner is already retired from service and he was not paid any retirement benefits, the respondents are directed to settle and pay the retirement benefits to the petitioner, in accordance with law, within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. __________________________ JUSTICE G. CHANDRAIAH Date: 22-04-2010 LSK