J. JAYANTH KUMAR Vs. NORTHERN POWER DISTRIBUTION COMPANY OF A.P. LTD. REP. BY ITS CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR, WARANGAL AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The writ petition is filed questioning the Memo No. CMD/Dir (HR)/CGM (HRD)/GM (S)/AS (DC)/PO-C/F.No.2073-C/04-60, dated 24.02.2009, issued by the 1st respondent-Northern Power Distribution Company of A.P. Ltd., Warangal.

(2.) It is the case of the petitioner that initially he was appointed as Bill-collector in the year 1982 in the erstwhile APSEB and at the relevant point of time he was working as UDC (Chowrastha Billing) with additional charges of UDC (Establishment) and JAO (Billing). While so, the 2nd respondent has issued a Memo dated 05.06.2004 by placing him under suspension and the Chief General Manager (HRD), who was appointed as Enquiry Officer, had issued a Memo No. CGM (Expr.) & EO/NPDCL/Fine/04/D.No.5579/04, dated 10.08.2004 framing four charges, for which he submitted his reply on 27.08.2004 by denying the said charges. Basing on the report submitted by the Enquiry Officer, the 2nd respondent issued a show cause notice dated 16.10.2004, for which he submitted his detailed explanation, however, without considering his explanation the 2nd respondent had issued Memo dated 15.02.2005 imposing punishment of dismissal. Against the said order, the petitioner filed W.P.No.16390 of 2005 and this Court disposed the same on 12.10.2007 ordering that "the petitioner shall be imposed with punishment of "Compulsory Retirement" from service w.e.f. 15.02.2005 and that he is entitled for all the benefits as per his eligibility treating that he retired from service compulsory w.e.f. 01-05-2005." Thereafter, the 2nd respondent preferred an appeal against the said order by filing W.A.No.733 of 2008 and the same was allowed on 18.04.2008, by setting aside the order dated 12.10.2007 passed in W.P.No.16390 of 2007 and remitted back the matter to the departmental appellate authority for fresh consideration of the appeal and to pass appropriate orders afresh within a period of two months. Later, the petitioner had submitted a fresh appeal before the 1st respondent on 06.08.2008, however, without considering the grounds of appeal, the same was disposed of on 24.02.2009 stating as follows:

(3.) In the additional affidavit filed by the petitioner in support of the Writ Petition he submitted that the inquiry is not initiated by the appointing authority i.e., Superintending Engineer, but the Chief General Manager, HRD, who is the appellate authority against the order passed by the Superintending Engineer, has initiated disciplinary proceedings by appointing Chief General Manager (Exp) APNPDCL as an Inquiry Officer, vide proceedings dated 17.07.2004 and he issued sheet vide Memo dated 10.08.2004 framing four charges, which is illegal and in violation of APSEB Disciplinary and Appeal Regulations, thereby initiating the disciplinary proceedings by appointing the Chief General Manager (Exp) as an Inquiry Office and asking him to frame the charge, vitiated the entire enquiry. Hence, the writ petition.