IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWENTY NINETH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 7321 of 2008 Between: Tanguturi Yadagiri S/o. T.narsaiah Nalgonda District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Andhra Pradesh Central Power Distribution Corporation Limited, Reptd. by its Chairman and Managing Director, Hyderabad. 2 Andhra Pradesh Central Power Distribution Corporation Limited, Reptd. by its Superintending Engineer/Operation Nalgonda , Nalgonda District. 3 Andhra Pradesh Central Power Distribution Corporation Limited, Reptd. by its Divisional Engineer (Electl) Operatio Nalgonda , Nalgonda District. .....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 a writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 2nd respondent in framing the charge memo No. SE/EC/13/98 dt. 27-8- 1998 and all further consequential orders including the show cause notice Memo No. GM(Per)/AS(Per) PO (DCI) /140-C4/02-08 dt. 30-4- 2007 issued by the 1st respondent and quash the same is illegal, improper, unjust and contrary to law and further direct the respondents to drop all disciplinary proceedings pending disposal of the petitioner. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.MAHADEVA KANTHRIGALA Counsel for the Respondents: P.R.BALARAMI REDDY(SC FOR AP TRANSCO) The Court made the following : ORDER: The petitioner was employed as Lineman in the first respondent- Corporation. Disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him way back in the year 1998, by issuing a charge memo. After considering the explanation of the petitioner, the respondents appointed an Enquiry Officer, and the latter, in turn, submitted a report, holding that the charges framed against the petitioner are proved. This was followed by a show cause notice, dated 30.04.2007. In the meanwhile, the petitioner retired from service. He challenges the charge memo as well as the show cause notice, on several grounds. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. The disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner as well as prosecution under the relevant provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act took place in the year 1998. It is stated that the petitioner was acquitted in the criminal case, vide judgment, dated 11.12.2006. Obviously, on account of the pendency of the criminal case, the departmental proceedings were not pursued seriously. Now that the criminal case has been disposed of, the respondents have resumed the disciplinary proceedings and issued a show cause notice. The retirement of the petitioner from service does not by itself abate the disciplinary proceedings. On the other hand, the Andhra Pradesh (Revised) Pension Rules, 1980 (for short “the Rules”), which are made applicable to the service of the employees in the respondent- Corporation, clearly mandate that it shall be open to the Corporation to continue the proceedings, even after the retirement. All the same, Rule 52 of the Rules mandates that, in such cases, the Corporation shall sanction the provisional pension. Hence, the Writ Petition is disposed of, upholding the charge memo as well as the show cause notice, but directing the respondents to conclude the disciplinary proceedings, within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. In the meanwhile, they shall release the provisional pension, as provided for under Rule 52 of the Rules, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs. ____________________ Dt.29.04.2008 L.NARASIMHA REDDY, J GJ ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{VSMI}