B. SANJEEVA REDDY Vs. SOUTHERN POWER DISTRIBUTION CO.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned standing counsel for the respondents.

(2.) The petitioner filed this writ petition to issue an appropriate Writ, Order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus by setting-aside the order issued by the 2ndrespondent in imposing the penalty of stoppage of one (1) annual grade increment with cumulative effect besides treating the period of suspension from 12/7/2006 to 20/7/2008 as leave to which the petitioner is eligible by indicating the punishment in the show cause notice even before communication of disagreement factors vide Memo. No.CGM(HRD)/GM(Adm)/AS/DC.I/PO (DC. I)/341-C1/06 dtd. 19/7/2014 though the enquiry officer has held that the charges are not proved and the related appellate/revisional/review orders issued by the 3rdrespondent vide Memo. No.CGM (HRD)/GM (IR, L and Adm)/AS/DC/PO (DC.I)341-C1/06 dtd. 10/10/2014, Memo. No.CGM (HRD)/GM (IR. L and Adm)/AS/DC/PO (DC.I)/341-C1/06 dtd. 20/8/2015 and Memo. No. CGM (HRD)/GM (Per)/AS/DC/PO (DC.I)/341-C1/06, dtd. 6/5/2020 modifying the punishment to that of without effect besides treating the period of suspension as on leave to which the petitioner is eligible, as being arbitrary, illegal, erroneous, vitiated by subject bias, based on no evidence, opposed to principles of natural justice and in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and further be pleased to hold that the petitioner is entitled to have his case considered and be notionally promoted as Divisional Engineer with effect from the date of promotion of the 5threspondent with all consequential benefits and also be considered for promotion to the post of Superintending Engineer in the interest of justice.

(3.) The case of the petitioner, in brief, is as follows: