C.V. Nagarjuna Reddy, J. - (1.) This writ petition is filed for a certiorari to quash the proceedings in Memo No. CMD/CGM/HRD/JS/AS -DC/PO -E/C -2/F. No. 1234/07 -25, dated 23.12.2010 of respondent No. 2. Brief facts leading to the filing of this writ petition are stated hereunder. The petitioner was appointed in the erstwhile Andhra Pradesh State Electricity Board (APSEB) on 17.11.1988 as Sub -overseer, at Vyra in Khammam District. In the year 1997 he was promoted as Additional Assistant Engineer and was transferred to Sattupally, Khammam District, in the year 1999. While he was working as Additional Assistant Engineer (Operations), Khammam, the Chairman and Managing Director of Northern Power Distribution Company of Andhra Pradesh Limited, (successor to the APSEB) appointed respondent No. 3 as Enquiry Officer to enquire into the purported grave charges against the petitioner and five other officers, by authorizing him to frame specific charges on the material available on record. In pursuance thereof, respondent No. 3 has framed as many as eleven charges. The Enquiry Officer has submitted his enquiry report. By the impugned proceedings dated 23.12.2010 respondent No. 2 has dismissed the petitioner from service. Feeling aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner filed this writ petition.
(2.) At the hearing, Mr. M. Pitchaiah, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, made several submissions. However three of these submissions which are very material are as under: (i) There is a delay of five years in initiating disciplinary proceedings and that therefore the enquiry itself is vitiated. (ii) The disciplinary authority which was competent to frame charges has abdicated its function and delegated the same to the Enquiry Officer who has framed charges and that therefore there is a serious procedural illegality in the conduct of the disciplinary proceedings. (iii) Respondent No. 2, who is the superior officer to the Chief Engineer, who is the designated disciplinary authority, has exercised the power of disciplinary authority and thereby deprived the petitioner of the right of appeal.
(3.) Learned Standing Counsel representing the respondents has strongly opposed the above submissions and commended the correctness of the procedure followed by the respondents as well as the order passed by respondent No. 2 dismissing the petitioner from service.;