IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH WRIT PETITION No.17046 of 2004 & CONTEMPT CASE No.85 of 2005 WRIT PETITION No.17046 of 2004 Between: S.Bhupal Reddy S/o.S.Ch.Keshava Reddy Akavedu Gram Panchayat and Post Racharla Mandal, Prakasam District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Southern Power Distribution Company of A.P.Ltd, rep by its Superintending Engineer-Operation Circle Ongole. 2 The Divisional Engineer-Electrical Operations Southern Power Distribution Company of A.P.Ltd. Markapur. .....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 to issue an order direction or writ particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ i) declare the Memo No.DEE/O/MRK Admn.JAO/UD.No.48/2004 dated 14.9.2004 terminating the services of the petitioner on the ground of the misconducgt without issuing charge sheet, without affording any opportunity is in violation of principles of natural justice and consequently set aside the same with further direction to reinstate the petitioner into service with all consequential benefits and pass. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.V.VISWANATHAM Counsel for the Respondent No.: MR.S.RAVINDRANATH Form-NIC-OGS/WP{MPL} CONTEMPT CASE No.85 of 2005 Between: S.Bhupal Reddy …..PETITIONER And: 1. Sri V.Krishna Murthy 2. Sri M.Venugopal ……RESPONDENTS The Court made the following: THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH WRIT PETITION No.17046 of 2004 & CONTEMPT CASE No.85 of 2005 COMMON ORDER: It is the case of the petitioner that he possessed qualification of SSC with ITI (Electrical) and he was appointed as Village Electricity Worker on 17.06.1998 and posted at Akavidu Grampanchayat, Racherla Mandal of Cumbum Sub-Division of Prakasam District. For the Village Electricity Workers, a grant-in-aid has been sanctioned by the Electricity Board and accordingly, the respondents used to pay grant-in-aid as per the certificate issued by the Akavidu Grampanchayat Sarpanch. While so, it is stated that the Sarpanch of Akavidu Grampanchayat made a complaint before the District Collector and Magistrate, stating that the petitioner was accepting certain bribes from the public and he has claimed the grant-in-aid post with forged signatures of the Grama Sarpanch to claim grant-in-aid from the Department and on the said allegations, an enquiry was called for from the Assistant Divisional Engineer, Operations, Cumbam. It is stated that the said Assistant Divisional Engineer, Operation of the Cumbum conducted an enquiry and found that all the allegations made by the Grama Sarpanch of Akavidu village are false and fictitious and not proved. The said allegations are incorrect and even as per the enquiries made by the departmental authorities, it was found that the petitioner was working properly up to the expectation of the public, the hand receipts produced by the petitioner for grant-in-aid are genuine and therefore, rightly accepted for the payment of grant-in-aid for the period from August, 1998 to June, 2002, and accordingly, a report was sent by the Divisional Engineer, Operation Division, APSPDC Ltd. Markapur in letter No.DEE.C.MRK.ADM.JAO.C.D.No.2236/02, dated 24.07.2002 to the Superintending Engineer, Operation Circle, A.P.S.P.D.C.Ltd., Ongole. It is stated that the 2nd respondent submitted the aforesaid report dated 24.07.2002, requesting to issue necessary orders duly admitting the hand receipts produced by the petitioner for payment of grant-in-aid. After the said report, dated 24.07.2002, the 2nd respondent renewed yearly contract of the petitioner vide his Memo dated 26.08.2002 on a consolidated remuneration of Rs.2,000/- per month. Thereafter, without any reference to his earlier report dated 24.07.2002 and the proceedings of the renewed contract dated 26.08.2002, the 2nd respondent passed the impugned order dated 14.09.2004, terminating the services of the petitioner-Contract Junior Lineman of Akavidu village, on the ground that as per the vigilance probe made by the Inspector of Police of the Vigilance and anti-power theft squad, it came to light that the petitioner has committed misconduct and that the petitioner forged the signatures of the Sarpanch on the hand receipts of the grant-in-aid for the period from 1997 to 2001 and that the petitioner has caused financial loss to the company to a tune of Rs.22,200/- and that he was also involved in a case in Cr.No.1/2004 for the offence under Sec.292 of IPC and Sec.3 of the Indecent Representation of Woman Act of Racherla P.S. It is stated that the Criminal Case in Cr.No.1/2004 for the offence under Sec.292 of IPC read with Sec.3 of the Indecent Representation of Worman Act, charge sheet was filed, which was numbered as CC.103/2004 after filing of the charge sheet on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Gidalur, after trial it was ended in acquittal by judgment dated 09.02.2007. Thus, it is stated that there was no charge pending against the petitioner. Admittedly, the impugned order of the 2nd respondent dated 14.09.194 is without issuing any notice and without giving any reasonable opportunity to the petitioner. Merely because the petitioner is a contract worker whose contract period as Village Electrician was renewed from time to time as was done in the case of several other similarly situated persons, it cannot be said that he has no right of renewal of his contract period. It is not a case of simple discontinuance of the contract authorizing him to work as a Contract Junior Lineman or Village Electricity Worker. But it is a case of termination of the contract of the petitioner as Junior Lineman by making serious allegations against him. Even the services of a temporary worker cannot be terminated casting stigma on his conduct which will disqualify the petitioner for seeking similar employment on contract basis or otherwise. Having regard to the facts of the case, as the impugned order is passed in violation of principles of natural justice, the same is liable to be set aside, and is, accordingly, set aside. The Writ Petition is, accordingly, allowed. No order as to costs. As the writ petition itself has been allowed setting aside impugned order, I am of the opinion that no further orders are required to be passed in the contempt case. The contempt case is, accordingly, closed. _____________________ V.ESWARAIAH,J Dated: 18.07.2008 Dsr .... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1 Southern Power Distribution Company of A.P.Ltd, rep by its Superintending Engineer-Operation Circle Ongole. 2 The Divisional Engineer-Electrical Operations Southern Power Distribution Company of A.P.Ltd. Markapur. 3 2. 2CCs to 4. 2CD copies