R SADASHIV Vs. GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition has been instituted challenging the orders dated 28.01.2010, communicating the rejection of the Respondents to permit the Petitioner to withdraw the resignation tendered by him earlier.

(2.) It is submitted by the Petitioner that he was recruited to the service of the Andhra Pradesh State Electricity Board (APSEB) on 26.11.1990 as a Lower Division Clerk. He was promoted as a Upper Division Clerk / Senior Assistant on 17.09.2004, by the Andhra Pradesh Northern Power Distribution Company Limited, Warangal, which was a successor in interest, to a certain extent, of APSEB. While he was working at Adilabad, the General Elections 2009 were announced. It is further stated that, he was inspired by the philosophy propounded by Mahatma Gandhi, Dr. B.R. Ambedkar and various other national leaders and hence wanted to contest the general elections for the Indian Parliament. Since the conduct rules do not permit the employees to participate directly in politics, he has preferred to tender his resignation which was accepted by the Superintendent Engineer (Operations), Adilabad, though his memo dated 30.03.2009. [In terms of Section 79(c) of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948, the Andhra Pradesh State Electricity Board (Revised) Conduct Regulations have been framed and published. Regulation 4 thereof listed out various misconducts on the part of employees. Entry XV thereof states thus: to take part or associate with any political party or organization including canvassing.] Incidentally, the Petitioner is a member who belongs to Schedule Tribe community and hence he contested for election to Lok Sabha from Adilabad constituency which is reserved for Scheduled Tribes. He lost the election and then he realized that politics is not his cup of tea. He submitted a representation on 23.05.2009 to the Superintendent Engineer seeking permission to withdraw his resignation which was accepted on 30.03.2009 and permit him to rejoin duty once again. That request of the writ Petitioner has been forwarded by the Superintendent Engineer for consideration of the Chairman and Managing Director of the Corporation, who in turn took up the matter with the State Government, seeking instructions as to whether the incumbent be admitted to duty permitting him to withdraw the resignation. It is now stated that the State Government has declined to accord any such permission and hence he instituted this writ petition.

(3.) Heard Sri P. Vinod Kumar, learned Counsel for the Petitioner. Apart from reiterating the fact situation in the matter, Sri P. Vinod Kumar, learned Counsel for the Petitioner would urge that the State Government has accorded permission in several cases in the past allowing their employees to rejoin duty after such employees have lost the elections which they have contested. Only in the case of the writ Petitioner such a permission has been declined.