MOHD. YAKUB A.P. NORTHERN POWER DISTRIBUTION CO. LTD. Vs. TRANSMISSION CORPORATION OF A.P. LTD. DIRECTOR (D & MRD). AND A.P. NORTHERN POWER DISTRIBUTION CO. LTD. CHAIRMAN & MANAGING DIRECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Writ Petition is filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking to issue a Writ of Mandamus declaring the impugned Memo No. CE/DC/DM.V/936 -Q1/96 -11, dated 25 -07 -1998, issued by the Member Secretary, Andhra Pradesh State Electricity Board (for short 'APSEB'), Vidyut Soudha, Hyderabad and the consequential Memo No. CE/DC/DM.V/936 -Q1/96 -12, dated 25 -10 -1999, issued by the 1st respondent as illegal, arbitrary and consequently, direct the respondents to restore the increment of petitioner as reduced in terms of aforesaid memo. Brief facts of the case are as follows:

(2.) AS far as charge No. 1 is concerned, the Inquiry Officer found the same as not proved.

(3.) ADMITTEDLY , Bhukya Somaji, who is the complainant, did not support the case of the Department. When the complaint lodged by the Villagers specifically referring to the names of D. Yesu and other persons involved in the offence, those names were not mentioned in the report. According to the petitioner, when he enquired with the consumers at the spot, nobody had informed him the names of other persons involved in the offence. It appears that the petitioner had not committed any misconduct, and he simply forwarded the complaint received from Mr. Bhukya Sydulu and others, to the Police. It has to be seen that the petitioner is neither a Police Officer nor an Inquiry Officer to conduct any preliminary investigation. It is for the police to make an inquiry. In a case of cognizable offence, responsibility of the concerned official is only to forward the same, as urgently as possible, to the Police, and the petitioner discharged his duty in accordance with law, since there was no legal obligation to make inquiry into the matter by the petitioner, who is only an employee of the Electricity Board. In view of the above, the finding of the Inquiry Officer with regard to proving charge No. II against the petitioner appears to be incorrect and based on presumptions and assumptions.