N.NARASIMHULU Vs. NATIONAL COMMISSION FOR SCHEDULED TRIBES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of this writ petition, the petitioner seeks to declare the action of the 1st respondent in issuing the proceedings, dated 14.03.2019, directing the 2nd respondent to reopen the punishment imposed in the year 2001 and to conduct re-enquiry into the allegations made in the charge Memo, dated 21.09.2005, and revise the seniority of the 3rd respondent effecting the rights of the petitioner and consequential communication of the 1st respondent, dated 15.03.2019 with a direction to the 2nd respondent and submit report, as illegal.

(2.) The petitioner joined Andhra Pradesh State Electricity Board as Assistant Engineer on 22.08.1992. later, he was promoted as Assistant Divisional Engineer in the then A.P.Transco on 31.12.2000. He was promoted as Divisional Engineer (Elec.) on 03.07.2006 following the rule of reservation in favour of the Scheduled Castes (for short, "SCs") and Scheduled Tribes (for short, "STs"), as adopted by the AP TRANSCO/APSPDCL. He was further promoted as Superintending Engineer on temporary/adhoc basis vide orders, dated 10.12.2008. He worked upto 06.08.2009 and his probation was declared by virtue of Memo dated 07.05.2011. He was further promoted as Chief Engineer with effect from 01.08.2013 and he is presently working as such. One Koduri Narayana Rao made a representation, dated 01.08.2018, to the 1st respondent Commission requesting to consider the case for promotion of the 3rd respondent, who belongs to ST category, stating that he was discriminated in filling the ST roster point at appropriate stage. The National Commission for STs, issued a notice dated 29.11.2018 seeking report from the Principal Secretary, Energy Department, Government of Andhra Pradesh. The APSPDCL submits its report dated 11.01.2019. Not satisfied with the said report, a meeting was fixed on 27.02.2019, wherein the Chairman and Managing Director, APSPDCL, was called for discussion. The said meeting was deferred to 14.03.2019. The APSPDCL submitted a detailed action taken report vide letter dated 25.02.2019, detailing that the request of the 3rd respondent cannot be considered as per Rules invogue. Thereafter, sittings were held on 14.03.2019, wherein the 3rd respondent is alleged to have submitted that he was denied promotion to the post of Divisional Engineer with effect from 03.07.2016 by arbitrarily imposition of punishment of stoppage of one increment. The Commission, observing that the 3rd respondent was awarded dual punishment for one charge of irregularities and accordingly recommended to the Chairman & Managing Director, APSPDCL, to re-conduct the enquiry into the allegations. The said recommendations are beyond the scope and jurisdiction of the National Commission. Hence, this writ petition seeking the above mentioned reliefs.

(3.) The 3rd respondent filed counter putting forth his service particulars and stating that he has been working honestly. Further contention is that the punishment imposed on the 3rd respondent commenced from 31.01.2006 and expired by 31.01.2007. Subsequently, he was promoted by proceedings, dated 05.12.2008, but the respondents promoted juniors to the 3rd respondent as per the seniority list in the cadre of Divisional Engineer, dated 05.07.2008, as on 01.04.2007, by which the 3rd respondent already became eligible and entitled for promotion. The 3rd respondent made representation to consider his case for notional promotion. It is contended that the 1st respondent is a constitutional body set up under Article 338A of the Constitution of India, to safeguard the STs under the Constitution of India. The recommendations made by the Commission are misinterpreted as if they are going to affect promotion of the petitioner. The writ petition is misconceived and hence, the same is liable to be dismissed.