THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED WRIT PETITION No.933 of 2000 ORDER: This writ petition is filed assailing the legality and validity of the impugned memo No.SE/OP/ADB/PO/E3/DNo.13/99, dated 01.02.1999, issued by the Superintending Engineer-the second respondent herein, by virtue of which, the punishment of stoppage of two annual grade increments with cumulative effect was imposed on the petitioner, and that since, he already retired from service on 31.07.1998, the punishment was ordered to be implemented as per Regulation-5(v)(b) and Explanation at item(ii) of A.P. State Electricity Board Employees Discipline and Appeal Regulations (for short ‘Regulations’), i.e., a sum of Rs.25,000/- was withheld from his pensionary benefits. Shorn off unnecessary details, the brief facts of the case as per the affidavit, filed in support of the writ petition, are that while the petitioner was working as Senior Line Inspector, a charge memo dated 27.04.1998 was issued alleging some misconduct under the Regulations, to which he submitted an explanation. However, after his retirement from service, an enquiry was conducted, during which a show cause notice was issued to him and he submitted an explanation, but the authorities ignored the same. The charge levelled against the petitioner was that he colluded with Consumer of S.C.No.15084, Category-III at Ashok Road, Adilabad, and reversed the ‘B’ phase connections inside the energy meter and sealed the meter terminal cover with paper seal, which was provided to him earlier for his selfish benefit by taking illegal gratification from the consumer. The Enquiry Officer after conducting an enquiry, held the charge to be proved against the petitioner and subsequently, the disciplinary authority-the second respondent herein imposed the punishment on the petitioner as stated supra. Hence, the writ petition. Now, the main grievance of the petitioner is that though he retired from service on 31.07.1998, the impugned order was passed on 01.02.1999 imposing the punishment of stoppage of two annual grade increments with cumulative effect, and basing on the same, a sum of Rs.25,000/- was withheld from his pensionary benefits, which is improper and illegal. Learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn the attention of this Court to the report of the Enquiry Officer, wherein it is recorded that the said consumer, in collusion with whom the petitioner is alleged to have committed the said misconduct, admitted that he himself has given the reverse connections in the meter before the inspection by D.P.E. Wing and he has also agreed to pay the penalty of Rs.22,353/- levied by the D.P.E. Wing, in addition to any other dues pending on the said service connection. In view of the same, the learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the Enquiry Officer without appreciating the evidence of the witnesses in proper perspective, held the charge to be proved against the petitioner and that the second respondent herein, who is the disciplinary authority, basing on the said report, passed the impugned order imposing the major punishment of stoppage of two annual grade increments with cumulative effect, which is contrary to law and as such, the same is liable to be set aside. I have carefully perused the enquiry report and other relevant material papers on record. In the enquiry report, it is categorically mentioned that the said consumer admitted in his evidence that he himself has given the reverse connections in the meter before the inspection by D.P.E. Wing and also agreed to pay the penalty levied by the D.P.E. Wing. This crucial aspect has missed the attention of the Enquiry Officer and he held that the charge is proved against the petitioner. The Enquiry Officer has not appreciated the evidence in proper perspective. For the aforesaid reasons and having regard to the factual matrix of the case, I deem it appropriate to remit the matter to the second respondent-disciplinary authority directing him to consider the matter afresh taking into account the admission of the said consumer that he himself has done the said mischief in the meter and pass appropriate orders, in accordance with law. The second respondent shall also consider the feasibility of imposing any other punishment on the petitioner other than the present major punishment, as the financial loss caused to the Electricity Board has already been paid by the consumer, as asserted by the learned counsel for the petitioner. Subject to the above directions, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned memo is set aside. However, there shall be no order as to costs. ______________________________ JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED 02nd December 2010 dr