LAWS(APH)-2008-8-39

S K MASTHAN Vs. SOUTHERN POWER DISTRIBUTION COMPANY

Decided On August 01, 2008
S.K.MASTHAN Appellant
V/S
SOUTHERN POWER DISTRIBUTION COMPANY OF A.P. LTD. Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE memo dated 02-09-2006, through which the Superintending Engineer (Operation) Southern Power Distribution Company Limited, Nellore, the 3rd respondent herein, imposed the punishment of reversion to a lower category, and treating the period of absence as dies non; is challenged in this writ petition.

(2.) THE petitioner was initially appointed as Junior Assistant. He was promoted as Senior Assistant (UDC), and thereafter, as Junior Accounts officer, on 13-07-2004. He was placed under suspension vide memo dated 04-01-2005, by the 3rd respondent, on the basis of certain news items, alleging financial irregularities on the part of the petitioner. An Inquiry Officer was appointed on 06-01-2005, who, in turn, issued a charge-sheet. The petitioner is alleged to have committed several financial irregularities and the details thereof, were mentioned in the charge-sheet. The petitioner submitted his explanation, and the Inquiry Officer conducted departmental inquiry. The charges framed against the petitioner were held proved. Accepting the report of the Inquiry Officer, the 3rd respondent issued a show cause notice, proposing the punishment, and thereafter, passed the impugned order. The appeal presented against the same was dismissed by the Appellate Authority.

(3.) THE petitioner contends that the initiation of disciplinary proceedings itself was vitiated, on account of the fact that a vague and uncertain report by an agency, without calling for the records of the petitioner, was taken as the basis. It is alleged that the appointment of an Inquiry Officer, even before charges were framed, is untenable in law. It is complained that the report, which constituted the basis for the disciplinary proceedings, was not furnished to the petitioner. The petitioner also submits that the findings of the Inquiry officer cannot be sustained, and are not supported by any material. The petitioner further contends that though the charges were in relation to certain aspects of accounting, punishment was imposed as regards the period of absence.