L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J.

( 1 ) THE appellant was employed as a Line inspector with the Eastern Power distribution Company of A. P. Limited-the first respondent. The second respondent viz. , the Superintending Engineer, Operation apepdc is the appointing authority. The second respondent appointed the third respondent herein as an Enquiry Officer to conduct enquiry into certain allegations, levelled against the appellant. Consequently, the third respondent framed charges and served the same on the appellant through his Proceedings dated 22-11-2004. The appellant challenged the same by filing Writ petition No. 24324 of 2004.

( 2 ) IN the writ petition, the plea of the appellant was that the appointment of the third respondent as an Enquiry Officer was not preceded either by a show-cause notice or by a charge sheet and in that view of the matter, the same was vitiated. He placed reliance upon the judgment of the Supreme court in State of Punjab v. V. K. Khanna On behalf of the respondents, it was pleaded that Regulation 10 (2) (a) of the Andhra pradesh State Transmission Corporation limited, Employees Discipline and Appeal regulations (for short the Regulations ) enables them to appoint

Click Here to Read the rest of this document