CH VIJAYA RAJU Vs. SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The order of the 2nd respondent-Appellate Authority, dated 09-07-1993 confirming the order of the 1st respondent-disciplinary authority dated 18-11-1992, whereby the petitioner was imposed the punishment of dismissal from service, is the subject matter of challenge in this writ petition.

(2.) Brief facts, relevant for the purpose of this writ petition, are that the petitioner was appointed on compassionate grounds in the A.P. State Electricity Board in the year 1981. He was posted as Revenue Cashier in the Electricity Revenue Office of the A.P.S.E.B. at Yemmiganur in 1990. It is his case that his job involved collection of bill amounts from customers at Yemmiganur and nearby villages covered by the Electricity Revenue Office and to remit the amounts, so collected, to the Electricity Revenue Office of the APSEB. It is stated in the affidavit, filed in support of the writ petition, that as part of his duty of collecting the bill amounts from different customers the petitioner, some times, had to accept short amounts from persons who were otherwise prompt payers though receipts for the total bill amounts were issued. It is his case that this was done in good faith on the assurance that the balance amounts would be paid without delay. Initial short payment by customers and delay in payment by them of the remaining bill amounts resulted in belated remittances being made to the APSEB. It is his case that during the period December, 1990 to February 1991 certain consumers had paid amounts in short and had also given soiled notes which could not be deposited with the APSEB, resulting in belated remittance, of the total amount due, only on 16-03-1991.

(3.) The petitioner was placed under suspension and an enquiry was ordered with the Divisional Engineeras the Enquiry Officer. The Enquiry Officer conducted the enquiry and, without examining witnesses on behalf of the management and without giving an opportunity to the petitioner to adduce evidence in his defence, held the charges are proved. On the basis of the Enquiry report, the Superintending Engineer-the 1st respondent dismissed the petitioner from service vide proceedings No.P O/AD/C1/ 2279/92, dated 18-11-1992 and the appeal preferred by the petitioner to the 2nd respondent was also dismissed vide proceedings No. CEE/CZ/CDP/112-1/ F.Disc.K/D.No.2129/93, dated 09-07-1993. The representation submitted by the petitioner on 02-09-1993 to the 3rd respondent was not considered vide memo dated 15-11-1993, a copy of which is said to have been received by the petitioner on 24-12-1993.