IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE NINTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 4337 of 2006 Between: P. Narasinga Rao S/o. P. Mallaiah ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Northern Power Distribution Company of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Chairman Warangal. 2 The Chief General Manager, APNPDCL, Warangal. 3 Divisional Engineer, APNPDCL, Warangal. 4 Superintendent Engineer, APNPDCL, Warangal. .....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 an order direction or writ particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus restraining the Respondents from giving effect to the order dt. 21-7-2005 and the consequential appellate order dt. 25-1-2006 and set aside the same and pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. 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 initially appointed as Bill Collector, in the year 1982, in the erstwhile A.P. State Electricity Board. Subsequently, he was promoted to the Revenue Cashier/LDC. In the year 1999, he was promoted to the post of UDC and was kept in-charge of revenue collections. A charge sheet was issued to the petitioner on 26.02.2004, alleging certain irregularities in his functioning. After receiving the explanation of the petitioner, departmental enquiry was conducted. The Enquiry Officer submitted a report holding that the charges framed against the petitioner are proved. Based upon the same, a show cause notice, dated 02.06.2004 was issued to the petitioner. On consideration of his explanation, the fourth respondent passed an order, dated 21.07.2005, imposing the punishment of reversion to the post of LDC permanently. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner preferred an appeal to the first respondent. The appeal was dismissed on 25.01.2006. Hence, this writ petition. Sri S.Ravindranath, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the petitioner was not furnished the copy of the report of the Enquiry Officer and was not given adequate opportunity, during domestic enquiry. He submits that reversion of the petitioner to the lower post permanently would block the career for rest of the service. He draws an analogy with another employee by name, Mr. Mallesham, who is said to have been inflicted the punishment of reversion for a period of one year for identical charge. Sri P.R.Balarami Reddy, learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, submits that the charges framed against the petitioner were found proved and before inflicting the punishment, the past record of the petitioner was also taken into account. He submits that the fourth respondent-the disciplinary authority and the first respondent-the appellate authority, have examined the matter in detail, with reference to the record and no interference is warranted. The petitioner made a specific complaint before the appellate authority that the report of the Enquiry Officer was not furnished to him and that the enquiry was not properly conducted. Though the contention of the petitioner was referred to, it was not indicated as to how the said lapse can be condoned. Failure to furnish the report of the Enquiry Officer by itself does not invalidate the disciplinary proceedings. All the same, either the disciplinary authority or the appellate authority is required to answer the issue, whenever it is raised. As per the law laid down by the Supreme Court, the matter has to go back to the disciplinary authority, or the appellate authority, for further action. This Court would have certainly directed the same, but for the fact that there is a possibility for disposal of the writ petition without the necessity of remanding it. The charges, levelled against the petitioner, were in relation to discrepancies in remittances. In one instance, the difference was about Rs.10/- and in another, the remittance was in excess of Rs.400/-, than what was collected. Though these omissions can certainly be treated as lapses on the part of the petitioner, the punishment that can be imposed against him must be commensurate with the gravity of the charges. A minor lapse cannot be permitted to become the ground to seal the career of the petitioner once for all. The petitioner had made a specific reference to the case of one Mr. Mallesham. He is said to have been inflicted with the punishment of reversion for a period of one year. There is no reason why a different approach had been adopted vis-à- vis the petitioner. Though the said employee did not suffer anything in terms of money, except the one on account of the reversion, any distinguishing aspects as regards the petitioner can be balanced by denying him the benefit of back wages. Hence, the Writ Petition is partly allowed, modifying the order, dated 21.07.2005, passed by the fourth respondent to be the one of reversion of the petitioner to the post of LDC for a period of one year. The petitioner shall not be entitled to any monetary benefit, on account of such modification till the date of this order. His eligibility for being promoted after expiry of one year shall be examined and necessary orders be passed, within a period of four weeks from today. There shall be no order as to costs. ____________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY, J. Dated:09.07.2008 GJ