IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No. 7892 of 2008 Between: K. Sambasiva Rao S/o.K. Sivasundara Rao R/o.H.No. 4-5-155, Koritipadu, 3rd lane, Guntur-7 ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Southern Power Distribution Company of A.P.Ltd. Rep,. by its Chairman & Managing Director, and Appellate Authority , Tirupathi. 2 Chief General Manager-HRD Sourthern Power Distribution Company of A.P.Ltd. Tirupathi. 3 The Superintending Engineer (Operations) Sourthern Power Distribution Company of A.P.Ltd. Guntur. .....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 order direction or a writ more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to act according to Regulation 11(d) of APSEB Disciplinary Appeal Regulations and pay Suspension allowance of Rs. 2,00,000/-. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.S.RAVINDRANATH Counsel for the Respondents: P.R.BALARAMI REDDY(SC FOR AP TRANSCO) The Court made the following ORDER: The petitioner was removed from service through an order, dated 27.09.2005, on disciplinary grounds and the same was confirmed by the appellate authority on 20.02.2006. The petitioner filed W.P.No.9131 of 2006 before this Court. The order of removal was set aside by this Court through its order, dated 01.11.2007, on the ground that the disciplinary authority did not undertake any discussion on the explanation submitted by the petitioner to the show cause notice. The disciplinary authority was given liberty to issue fresh show cause notice and to pass orders afresh. Thereafter, a show cause notice, dated 01.02.2008, was issued by the disciplinary authority. The grievance of the petitioner is that he has not been paid the subsistence allowance as required under Regulation 11(d) of A.P.S.E.B. Employees Revised Conduct Regulations (for short ‘the Regulations’). Heard Sri S.Ravindranath, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri P.R.Balarami Reddy, the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. As of now, the petitioner has been issued a fresh show cause notice in compliance with the directions issued by this Court in W.P.No.9131 of 2006. He is yet to submit explanation. Regulation 11(d) of the Regulations reads as under: “Where a penalty of dismissal, removal or compulsory retirement from service imposed upon an employee of the Board is set aside or declared or rendered void in consequence of or by a decision of a Court of law and the disciplinary authority, on a consideration of the circumstances of the case decides to hold a further inquiry against him on the allegation on which the penalty of dismissal/removal or compulsory retirement was originally imposed, the employee shall be deemed to have been placed under suspension by the appointing authority from the date of the original order of dismissal, removal or compulsory retirement and shall continue to remain under suspension until further orders.” From a perusal of the same, it is evident that it gets attracted only in cases where an order of removal or dismissal from service is set aside and the disciplinary authority takes a decision by himself, to hold a further enquiry. In the instant case, the disciplinary authority did not take any decision to conduct any further enquiry. Except that a fresh show cause notice is issued on the basis of the same enquiry report as directed by this Court, no further steps were taken. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to extend the benefit under Regulation 11(d) of the Regulations to the petitioner. It is represented that the petitioner did not submit his explanation due to financial problems. Fifteen days time is granted to him to submit his explanation to the show cause notice, dated 01.02.2008. The disciplinary authority, in turn, shall pass orders, within a period of four weeks from the date of submission of explanation. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. ___________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY,J Dt:11.04.2008 KDL ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{VSMI}