P. S. NARAYANA, J.

( 1 ) G. JAWAHARLAL respondent in W. A. No. 1268/2003, is the writ petitioner in W. P. No. 14828/2003. Rural Electrification Corporation Limited, represented by its Chairman and Managing director - 1st appellant in the Writ Appeal, is the respondent in the writ petition. In view of the commonness of the questions involved in the writ appeal and the writ petition aforesaid, both are being disposed of by this Common Order.

( 2 ) THE respondents in W. P. No. 1713ii 99, aggrieved by the order of the learned single Judge dated 26-2-2003 had preferred the Writ Appeal. The respondent in the Writ appeal filed W. P. No. 14828/2003 praying for a writ of mandamus directing the Corporation to restore the increments due for the years 1999-2000 and fix the scale to the next higher grade as Special Grade post and consider the case for promotion to the post of Deputy Chief (Economics) and consequently direct the respondent to pay all the benefits accrued as a sequel to the outcome of W. P. No. 17137 of 1999 and pass such other suitable orders.

( 3 ) FOR the purpose of convenience gjawaharlal is referred to as petitioner and the Rural Electrification Corporation Limited as Corporation, in short.

( 4 ) SRI S. Ravi, the learned Counsel representing the Corporation made the following submissions. The learned Counsel pointed out that the petitioner filed W. P. No. 22654/99 praying for the relief of consideration for promotion and had withdrawn the same without reserving any liberty and hence W. P. No. 14828/2003 praying for the same relief is not maintainable and the same is liable to be dismissed on this ground alone. The learned Counsel also maintained that in the present case, the corporation imposed only minor penalty as per the Rural Electrification Corporation limited (Conduct, Discipline and Appeal) rules, hereinafter in short referred to as "rules" for the purpose of convenience, and hence the Corporation is liable to follow only the procedure under Rule 27 of the rules. The learned Counsel also submitted that the Corporation had given the gist of imputations of misconduct and misbehaviour against the petitioner and the petitioner having fully understood the same gave a reply and the Disciplinary Authority having considered the same imposed only minor penalty. The learned Counsel also further submitted that there was no procedural irregularity or any other legal infirmity and the procedure as per the Rules, principles of fair play and justice had been complied with and hence the learned Single Judge had erred in granting the relief to the petitioner.

( 5 ) PER contra, Sri Challa Kodanda ram, the learned Counsel representing the petitioner/g. yawa/iar/a//respondent in the writ Appeal, made the following submissions. The learned Counsel had taken this Court through the findings recorded by the learned Single Judge and submitted that there is no illegality committed by the learned single Judge warranting any interference in the Writ Appeal. The learned Counsel also meticulously had taken us through different rules and explained that having initiated the proceedings for imposition of major penalty, the Corporation had given a go-bye to the same and this had definitely caused prejudice to the petitioner. The learned Counsel also commented that there was only a show- cause and there were no specific imputations; what was called upon was only some clarification. The learned Counsel also submitted that no reasons had been recorded by the Disciplinary Authority as well as the appellate Authority. An attempt also was made to show that the original authority had no jurisdiction at all to impose such punishment and though it was not made a ground of attack, it being a pure question of law, it was contended, the same can be raised at any stage. Strong reliance was placed on certain decisions too.

( 6 ) MS. Krowidi Padrnaja, the learned counsel representing the petitioner in the writ Petition submitted that the petitioner is entitled

Click Here to Read the rest of this document