HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.676 of 2010 Dated: 03-06-2010 Between: G. Bhoomesh. … Petitioner And The Northern Power Distribution Company Limited, Hanumakonda, rep. by its Chairman and Managing Director & others. … Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.676 of 2010 ORDER: The petitioner is a Lineman working in the Northern Power Distribution Company Limited of A.P. In this writ petition, he has questioned the validity of the order, dated 6th January 2009, passed in Memo No.DEE/O&C/KMR/ADM/E2/D.No.3989/08, by the 3rd respondent-Divisional Engineer (Electrical), Operation and Construction Division, Kamareddy. By the aforesaid order, the 3rd respondent, in exercise of power under Regulation 11 of the Andhra Pradesh State Electricity Board (discipline and appeal) Regulations, as adopted by the A.P. TRANSCO and APNPDCL, has placed the petitioner under suspension, pending inquiry in the disciplinary proceedings. In the aforesaid order, an allegation is made against the petitioner that on 4th of January 2009, there was a theft of 3.5 Kms 34 mm conductor and 5 L.T. Cross Arms from the stores of the Company. It is stated that the said material was seized by the beat Constables of Devanpally Police Station from the petitioner when he was carrying the same in an Auto bearing No.AP-25-V-5121. This writ petition is filed, stating that the respondents have initiated disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner merely basing on the complaint made by the 4th respondent-Assistant Engineer with regard to theft of certain material from the stores, and that the impugned order of suspension is passed, though there is no evidence to show that the petitioner is responsible for such theft. When the matter is taken up, the learned Standing Counsel, appearing for respondents, has submitted that in the disciplinary proceedings initiated against the petitioner, final inquiry is also concluded and basing on the final inquiry report, having provisionally come to the conclusion for reversion of petitioner to lower rank, a show cause, dated 17th of March 2010, was issued to him. When the regular inquiry is already concluded by recording a finding that the petitioner has committed theft of the material in question, this Court, in this writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution, cannot interfere with the impugned order of suspension. As much as no other argument is advanced and in view of the completion of inquiry, the plea of the petitioner that he is not responsible for the theft, cannot be accepted. For the aforesaid reasons, keeping it open to the petitioner to file his explanation to the show cause notice, dated 17th March 2010, this writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. ______________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY, J 3rd June 2010 ajr