IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 5307of 1999 Between: B.Prasad S/o. B.Masthanaiah, R/o. D.No.7/1003/3, Raghavaiahpeta, Sullurpet, Nellore District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Transmission Corporation of A.P. Ltd., Vidyut Soudha rep. by its Member Secretary, Hyderabad. 2 The Divisional Elecl. Engineer (Operation) Transmission Corporation of A.P. Limited, Gudur, Nellore 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, Order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the impugned declaring the impugned proceedings Memo No.DEE/O/GDR/ADM/U.1/D.No.206/99 dated 3-3-99 issued by the 2nd respondent is illegal, arbitrary, against principles of natural justice and without jurisdiction and consequently set aside the same by directing the respondents herein not to recover any amounts from the salary of the petitioner in pursuance of the proceedings dated 3-3-99 and grant such other relief as it may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner : MR.G.VIDYASAGAR Counsel for the Respondents : P.R.BALARAMI REDDY(SC FOR AP TRANSCO) The Court made the following : ORDER : In this writ petition, the petitioner, who is working as a Line Inspector in the Andhra Pradesh Transmission Corporation Ltd., has questioned the Proceedings, dated 3rd March 1999, passed in Memo No.DEE/O/GDR/ADM/U.1/D.No.206/99, by which, an amount of Rs.10,210.50 ps., is ordered to be recovered from the salary of the petitioner in four instalments. 2. The late father of the petitioner was in the service of the 1st respondent Transmission Corporation as a Bill Collector. As he had died while in service, the petitioner was appointed as a Helper on compassionate grounds. Thereafter, he was promoted to the post of Assistant Lineman, Lineman and later to the post of Line Inspector. It is the case of the petitioner that merely alleging misappropriation of some amount by the late father of the petitioner, the impugned proceedings were issued without conducting any inquiry and without issuing any notice. It is the grievance of the petitioner that having kept quite for about 20 years, it is not open for the respondents to recover such an amount without conducting any inquiry and without issuing any prior notice or giving any opportunity of hearing to him. 3. A counter affidavit is filed on behalf of the respondents. Even from the counter affidavit, it is clear that during the life time of the father of the petitioner, no inquiry was conducted and no findings were recorded imposing any monetary liability on the late father of the petitioner. It is clearly admitted in the counter affidavit that no charges were framed against the late father of the petitioner, alleging misappropriation of any amount. 4. In view of the stand taken in the counter affidavit, it is clear that at no point of time any inquiry was conducted either against the father of the petitioner or the petitioner. In that view of the matter, it is not open for the respondents to recover straightaway an amount of Rs.10,210.50 ps., from the petitioner on the allegation that there was misappropriation by the late father of the petitioner, who was in the service of the respondents as a Bill Collector. Having kept quite for 20 years even after the death of the father of the petitioner who was in service, it is not open for the respondents to recover such amount without conducting any inquiry and even without any notice. For these reasons, the impugned orders of recovery issued in Memo No.DEE/O/GDR/ADM/U.1/D.No.206/99, dated 03.03.1999 are fit to be quashed. 5. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed and the proceedings issued for recovery in Memo No. DEE/O/GDR/ADM/U.1/D.No. 206/99, dated 03.03.1999 are quashed. No order as to costs. ______________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY, J 27th January 2009. ajr