P SRINIVASA RAO Vs. ANDHRA PRADESH STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD DIVISIONAL ENGINEER
LAWS(APH)-1992-4-48
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
Decided on April 13,1992

P SRINIVASA RAO, UPPER DIVISION CLERK Appellant
VERSUS
DIVISIONAL ENGINEER (OPERATION), ANDHRA PRADESH STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD Respondents


Referred Judgements :-

M.S. CHAUHAN V. STATE BANK OF INDIA [REFERRED]
H.K. DOGRA V. CHIEF G.M.S.B.I. [REFERRED]
SUJIT KUMAR HALDER V. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED]
SACHIDANAND SINGH V. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED]
S.N. MUKHERJEE V. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED]
STATE OF PUNJAB VS. BAKHTAWAR SINGH [REFERRED]
R P BHATT VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED]
RAM CHANDER VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED]
KASHINATH DIKSHJTA VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED]
PRATHAMA BANK HEAD OFFICE MORADABAD VS. VUAY KUMAR GOEL [REFERRED]
HIRALAL SHAH VS. STATE OF ASSAM & ORS. [REFERRED]


JUDGEMENT

- (1.)This writ petition is directed for the issue of a writ of certiorari to call for the records pertaining to the proceedings dated 28-5-1986 in Memo No.SE/OR/ HYD/Peshi/D. No. 939 (in brief the 'impugned Proceedings') and quash the same as illegal, improper, unjust and contrary to the Regulations of the A.P. State Electricity Board (in brief 'the Board'). The Petitioner joined the service of the Board as a Lower Division Clerk on January 29,1960. He was promoted as Upper Division Clerk in June, 1969. While working as U.D. Clerk the petitioner was kept under suspension as per orders dated August 23,1983 in Memo No. DEE/OP/VKB/ADM/C2/B. No. 22/83. Sri K.Hanumantha Rao, Divisional Engineer (Electrical), N.R.T. Rural, Hyderabad was appointed as Enquiry Officer, as per orders dated 25-9-1983. The said enquiry officer framed as many as 16 charges and initiated enquiry in accordance with the Regulations of the A.P.S.E.B. The petitioner having submitted his explanation informed that an oral enquiry may also be made. The Enquiry Officer held that all the charges except the charges 14 and 15 were held proved. The Enquiry Officer recommended major punishment of dismissal from service. The Superintending Engineer, Operation, Hyderabad as per his memo No.SE/OR/HYD/Peshi/ D. No. 2240,dt. August 20,1984 while enclosing the copy of the Enquiry report called upon the petitioner to submit his written statement within fifteen days from the date of receipt of notice to show cause as to why he should not be dismissed from service. As, such the petitioner approached this court having filed W.P. No. 13128 of 1984 alleging that the procedure adopted by the enquiry officer as well as the officer who passed the proceedings dated August 20,1984 calling upon the petitioner to show cause as to why he should not be dismissed from service, offends all canons of principles of natural justice, the said notice was not in confirmity with the regulations of the Board, the conclusions arrived at by the Enquiry Officer without conducting the enquiry in accordance with rules is illegal; in the enquiry report the enquiry officer did not consider the defence case as set up by the petitioner and that the said enquiry was in contravention of Regulation 10 of A.P.S.E.B. Employees Discipline and Appeal Regulations, (in short 'Regulations').
(2.)The said writ petition was heard and as per order dated September 18, 1984 stayed all further proceedings in the matter. Subsequently, as per orders dated July 18,1985 since the counsel appearing for the Board submitted that the dismissal order which was the subject matter of W.P. No. 13128/84 was withdrawn, W.P. No. 13128/84 was dismissed as having become infructuous. Subsequently the enquiry was further proceeded with and the Enquiry Officer recommended the punishment of removal of the petitioner from service. In view of that, the Superintending Engineer, Operation (Rural), Hyderabad as per his Memo No,SE/OR/HYD/Peshi/D. No. 482 dt. August 26,1985 issued a final show cause notice calling upon the petitioner to show cause as to why the punishment of removal from service should not be awarded and called upon the petitioner to show cause as to why the said punishment should not be awarded within 15 days from the date of receipt of the said memo. Having received the said final show cause notice the petitioner submitted a detailed explanation reiterating his innocence. Later the Superintending Engineer (Operation), Rural, Hyderabad under the impugned proceedings removed the petitioner from the service of the Board besides directing recovery of Rs. 50,166-75 towards loss caused to the Board on account of the defalcation of the said amount. Having received the impugned proceedings, the petitioner in accordance with the Regulations preferred an appeal to the Chief Engineer of the Board, Hyderabad and the Chief Engineer as per his proceedings in Memo No.CEE/WZ/P/F. No. 137/D/No. 63/87 dt. 5-5-1987 rejected the appeal preferred by the petitioner. Thereupon the writ petitioner has come up with the present writ petition for the issue of a writ of certiorari to quash the impugned proceedings.
(3.)It is the contention of the petitioner that on August 17,1983 the petitioner and the Accountant by name Md. Basheet found that one K. Venkateswara Rao misapporpriated certain amounts belonging to the Board and brought the said information to the notice of the Assistant Accounts Officer (E.R.O.) Rural, West, Hyderabad oh the same day who asked the petitioner and the said Md. Basheer to give the said complaint in writing, accordingly the petitioner and Md. Basheer on August 23,1983 reduced the said complaint into writing and handed over the same to the Assistant Accounts Officer, E.R.O. Rural, West, Hyderabad, in the said complaint it was categorically mentioned that Sri Venkateswara Rao had misappropriated the funds belonging to the Board, and requested, the authorities to arrange audit of all the accounts, pertaining to the period of the said Venkateswara Rao, but surprisingly even though there was no allegation against the petitioner, the petitioner was suspended as per orders dt. 23-8-1983. It is to be further seen that as per Memo No.SE/OR/HYD/Peshi/CF. 58 dt. September 22, 1983 not only the petitioner but K. Venkateswara Rao, Md. Basheer and Smt. Waheedunnisa Begum were also kept under suspension. It is the contention of the petitioner that having noticed the fraud committed by Sri K. Venkateswara Rao he gave a complaint along with Md. Basheer but strangely he was kept under suspension and disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him. Of course, it is also not in dispute that Memo No. SE /OR/ HYD/Peshi/CF. 58 dt. 28-9-1983 shows that one K. Venkateswara Rao, Md. Basheet and Smt. Waheedunnisa Begum were also kept under suspension. But in the event of there being any material against the petitioner, the action of the authorities cannot be questioned.
;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.