C MADHUSUDHAN Vs. ANDHRA PRADESH STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Writ Petition is filed seeking Writ of Certiorari to quash the proceedings in Memo No. CE/ENQ/DM.V/332-01/90-14, dated 25-7-1997 passed by the first respondent, i.e. Member Secretary, AP Electricity Board (presently A.P. TRANSCO) and sought for consequential direction to grant seniority, promotion and other benefits.

(2.) The impugned order dated 25-7-1997 was passed by the appellate authority on the appeal filed by the petitioner herein, modifying the punishment from removal to that of reduction by 30 ranks in the seniority list of Assistant Engineers (Electrical). Few necessary facts for disposal of the Writ Petition are as under: The second respondent has initiated departmental action against the petitioner herein, who was working as Assistant Engineer, initially appointing one Mr. S. Prabhakaran, Divisional Engineer, Technical, as Enquiry Officer to enquire into the allegations of misbehaviour and abuse of the officials and other lapses/irregularities alleged to have been committed by the petitioner herein. The charges levelled against the petitioner are as follows:

(3.) The said enquiry officer has conducted enquiry and submitted his report vide letter dated 14-6-1989 to the second respondent- disciplinary authority. As per the said enquiry report, which I perused from the record submitted by the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents, it reveals that he has recorded findings holding that Charge No. 1 has not been proved and other two charges are held to be proved and further recorded that the petitioner's misbehaviour is liable for disciplinary action. After submission of the said enquiry report, on the ground that the material witnesses were not examined, the disciplinary authority has set aside the enquiry report and appointed one Mr. ML Rahman, Superintending Engineer, Enquiries, as Enquiry Officer to conduct de novo enquiry. The said authority has conducted de-novo enquiry before whom the petitioner appears to have initially appeared, but not effectively participated in the later stages of enquiry to cross examine the witnesses. Ultimately, the enquiry officer has submitted report to the disciplinary authority holding that the charges levelled against the petitioner namely that he disobeyed the orders of the higher officials and abused and misbehaved with the higher officials and other employees on 28-6-1988 has held proved. Based on the said enquiry report, after issuing further show cause notice to the petitioner, the orders were passed by the original authority in Memo No, DP/DM.V/332-01/90-10, dated 26-8-1993 removing the petitioner from service by treating the period of suspension from 30-6-1988 to 31-5-1990 as not on duty. Against the same, the petitioner preferred departmental appeal to the Chairman of the first respondent, who by impugned order dated 25-10-1997, taking into account 14 years of service put in by the petitioner by that time in the department found that the punishment of removal from service is harsh, has modified the punishment from removal to that of reduction by 30 ranks in the same category.