IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD

MONDAY, THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN

PRESENT HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU

WRIT PETITION No.17642 OF 2011

Between:

J. Badari Narayana

..... Petitioner

AND

The Chief General Manager (HRD) A.P. Southern Power Distribution Company Limited, Tirupati & another

..... Respondents

The Court made the following:

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU

WRIT PETITION No.17642 OF 2011

ORDER:

The present Writ Petition is filed to declare the action of the respondents herein in not considering the representation, dated 27.04.2011, of the petitioner herein, submitted for release of the pensionary benefits, back wages, attendant benefit and promotions etc., on par with his juniors, including dropping of the departmental enquiry against the petitioner herein, as being illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the provisions of A.P.C.C.A. Rules and various judgments and consequently direct the respondents herein to forthwith release the pensionary benefits, back wages, attendant benefits and promotion to the petitioner herein on par with his juniors by dropping the departmental proceedings.

2. The brief facts that are necessary for the disposal of this Writ Petition are as follows:

The petitioner, who was working as Line Inspector in the respondent company, was placed under suspension on 21.11.2001 by the Divisional Executive Engineer, Operation, as per the instructions of the Superintending Engineer (Operation), Guntur. After lapse of four months i.e., on 27.02.2011, an Enquiry Officer was appointed under Regulation 10 (2) A of the APSEB Discipline and Appeal Regulations. Prior to the suspension of the petitioner, the Chief Engineer, Electricity (HRD) APSPDCL, Tirupati, appointed the Accounts Officer, Internal Audit, Vijayawada as an Enquiry Officer. Subsequently, the same was cancelled and the Chairman and Managing Director, A.P. TRANSCO appointed the Financial Advisor and Chief Controller of Accounts/APSPDCL, Tirupati as Enquiry Officer on 27.02.2002. Later the enquiry officer issued a charge sheet to the petitioner on 02.08.2003.

Pursuant to considering the reply of the petitioner, the Enquiry Officer issued proceedings on 16.02.2004 filling the departmental oral enquiry on 23.02.2004 and 24.02.2004 at 10.30 a.m. to 5.00 p.m. in the chamber of the Senior Accounts Officer, Operation, Guntur, Office of the Senior Engineer (Operation) Guntur. An oral enquiry was conducted on 23.04.2004. The Enquiry Officer has submitted his report vide Lr.No.EO & CGM (Expr.) Confds 1/D.No.292/2004, dated 28.02.2004. In his report, the Enquiry Officer held that the charges against the petitioner are not proved. Subsequently, the respondent authorities, without any sort of authority or power, proceeded with conduct of denovo enquiry vide Memo, dated 03.06.2005. Questioning the legality and validity of the denovo enquiry, the petitioner filed W.P.No.17567 of 2005 before this Court and this Court granted interim stay of all further proceedings in respect of the Memo, dated 03.06.2005.

While so, the Government issued orders for reinstatement of the employees who were continued under suspension for more than two years and requested the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for reinstatement, since they were continued under suspension for more than two years. That when the respondents did not implement the Government orders, the petitioner was constrained to approach this Court and filed W.P.No.2275 of 2010 along with others and the said Writ Petition was disposed off vide order, dated 05.02.2010. Before considering the case of the petitioner for reinstatement, the petitioner was retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation on 28.02.2010. Prior to the retirement, the Government vide orders in G.O.Ms.No.52, dated 25.02.2010, directed the respondent authorities to revise the pay scales of the reinstated employees

from suspension. In view of the above the petitioner is entitled for revision of his pay scale.

The petitioner further submits that an enquiry should be conducted based on the allegations at the time of issuing charge sheet as per Regulation 10 (2) (aq) and

10.3 (a) (i) of the APSEB Discipline and Appeal Regulations. But due to the misuse of the powers by the respondent authorities, resulting in loss of revenue to the APSPDCL. Further, the APCCA Rules clearly states that if the Criminal Court acquits the accused, the departmental authorities cannot proceed with the pending disciplinary proceedings. In the instant case, the petitioner was cleanly acquitted in C.C.No.87 of 2002, dated 24.03.2009. In view of the above, the respondents have no power to conduct even a regular enquiry also and the petitioner is entitled to draw all the pensionary benefits, back wages, attendant benefits, promotions, etc., on par with his juniors. The petitioner submitted a detailed representation, dated 27.04.2011, requesting the respondents herein to release the pensionary benefits, attendant benefits, promotions, etc., on par with his juniors and to drop the departmental proceedings. Though the petitioner has been approaching the respondents, but till date no orders whatsoever have been passed on the said representation, dated 27.04.2011.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that for release of retirement benefits, a representation was given to the respondents on 27.04.2011 and no action has been taken. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the enquiry is pending against the petitioner. Appropriate decision has to be taken according to the rules and regulations of the APSEB. Ordinarily, when a departmental enquiry is pending, the question of back wages, attendant benefits and other benefits cannot be

granted. However, this aspect of the case has to be decided by the first respondent. The first respondent has to take appropriate decision on the representation, dated 27.04.2011.

4. Hence, the Writ Petition is disposed of directing the first respondent to take appropriate decision on the representation, dated 27.04.2011 according to the rules and regulations of the APSEB, within a period of eight (8) weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs.

______________ (K.C.BHANU, J)

Dated: 27 th June, 2011.

KL

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU

WRIT PETITION No.17642 OF 2011

27 th June, 2011

KL