D RAJA RAM Vs. DIVISIONAL ELECTRICAL ENGINEER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is working as Assistant Lineman, in the Andhra Pradesh Central Power Distribution Company Limited. The first respondent issued a memo, dated 1.8.2003, pointing out two alleged irregularities, on the basis of the information received from the second respondent, vide his memo dated 24.7.2003. It was alleged that the billing for two service connections, within the jurisdiction of the petitioner, was being done, without there being a meter, and that the service meter was not fixed to one consumer, even after he handed over a Demand Draft of Rs.520/-. The petitioner submitted his explanation on 18.8.2003. On a consideration of the same, the first respondent imposed the punishment of postponing of two annual increments, without cumulative effect, against the petitioner, through the memo dated 6.9.2003. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the second respondent. The appeal was rejected on 20.12.2004. The said orders are challenged in this writ petition.

(2.) Sri R.Ananda Mohan Rao, learned Counsel for the petitioner, submits that the very initiation of the proceedings against the petitioner was illegal, inasmuch as the first respondent indicated the proposed punishment in the charge memo itself. He further contends that the first respondent relied upon some material, called for from different officials, in holding the petitioner guilty and imposing the punishment.

(3.) Learned Standing Counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, submits that mere indication of punishment in the show-cause notice is not fatal to the proceedings. He submits that the petitioner was given adequate opportunity to submit explanation to the charge memo, and no exception can be taken to the impugned orders.