Back
Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : NEELAM SANJIVA REDDY, S.PARVATHA RAO
Raghavaiah D. - Appellant
Versus
Chairman, A.P.S.E.B., Hyderabad - Respondent
Decided On : 06-11-97
Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 226 - Industries Limited - Service Regulations - In counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondents it is stated that impugned orders were passed after giving full opportunity to petitioner and after oral enquiry as sought by him - It is also stated that as enquiry was conducted by disciplinary authority himself there was no separate report of enquiry officer and that Memo given by 2nd respondent to petitioner contained all reasons for arriving at provisional conclusions of 2nd respondent mentioned therein - In said Memo petitioner was also asked to submit his explanation for punishment proposed therein - He submits that date from which petitioner was treated as unauthorisedly absent for more than one year was not mentioned and that made charge vague - We do not find any merit in this contention first charge itself was that petitioner abstained from duty without proper leave application from second charge was that he abstained from duty and third charge was that he did not respond to two telegrams - Petitioner does not dispute that he was continuously absent from duty onwards for one reason or other - Held, We may also point out that in present case respondents applied Regulation of Part I of Service Regulations after giving reasonable opportunity to petitioner and no question of proportionality of punishment arises - What Supreme Court has observed - Industries Limited is that before taking any action putting an end to tenure of an employee/workman fair play requires that a reasonable opportunity to put forth his case is given and domestic inquiry conducted complying with principles of natural justice this has been reiterated by a Division Bench of this Court with reference to Regulation of Service Regulations in Chief Engineer - In present case principles of natural justice and fair play are not in any way violated as already observed by us earlier - Petitioner towards loss sustained by Board is bad because that did not form part of any of charges framed against petitioner and no mention of any loss sustained by Board was made in any of grounds for charges - We agree learned Standing Counsel for Board is unable to support this part of order - Petition is dismissed.
( 1 ) THE Petitioner questions the action of the 2nd respondent i. e. , the Chief Engineer, Electricity, Central Zone, Vijayawada in "imposing the punishment against the petitioner by way of disciplinary action" under Memo No. Persl/cf3 (97-A) VJA/338/90, dated 10/04/1990, as confirmed by the 1st respondent i. e. the Chairman, Andhra Pradesh State Electricity Board ( the Board for short) in Memo No. DP/dmv/s. II/670-02/90-2, dated 25/03/1991, as illegal and void and consequently to direct the respondents to reinstate him to duty with all consequential benefits.
( 2 ) IT is not in dispute that an enquiry was duly conducted by the 2nd respondent after giving adequate opportunity to the petitioner in respect of the following charges :-"charge I : You have abstained from duty at Operation Section, Karampudi from July 22, 1983 F. N. You have not submitted proper leave application. Hence, your absence from 22/07/1983 F. N. is unauthorised. GROUNDS FOR THE CHARGE : While you were working as AAE (OP) Karampudi, you have suddenly abstained from duty with effect from 22/07/1983 F. N. without any intimation to your Superior Officers and without obtaining proper permission from the competent authority. This constitutes misconduct as per Reg. 6 (XXIX) of Board s Employees Discipline and Appeal Regulations. CHARGE II : Again you have abstained from duty with effect from 4/05/1984 F. N. You have not submitted proper leave application. Hence, your absence from May 4, 1984 F. N. onwards is also unauthorised. GROUNDS FOR THE CHARGE : While you were working as AAE/constn/macherla you have suddenly abstained from duty with effect from 4/05/1984 F. N. without any intimation to your superior Officers and without obtaining proper permission from the competent authority. Hence, your absence with effect from 4/05/1984 F. N. is unauthorised. This period of absence with effect from 4/05/1984 F. N. has exceeded one year period of unauthorised absence by 5/05/1985 and this act on your part has attracted the provisions under Reg. 28 (3) of Board s S. R. Part I. CHARGE III : You have not responded to the two telegrams dated 15/04/1986 and July 9, 1986 issued by the Superintending Engineer/o/vijayawada directing you to appear before the Superintending Engineer on 16/04/1986 and July 14, 1986 respectively. This act on your part amounts to gross disobedience towards the superior officers and this constitutes misconduct under Reg. , 6 (XXXIV) of Board s Employees Discipline and Appeal Regulations. GROUNDS FOR THE CHARGE : On your willingness to join duty you were given posting orders in Memo No. 4590 of 21/12/1985 by Superintending Engineer/o/vijayawada pending regularisation of your unauthorised absence. On your representation dated 27/12/1985 requesting for change in the place of posting you were given an opportunity by the Superintending Engineer twice to appear before him in person which you have failed to avail the opportunity on both the occasions. CHARGE IV : You have not properly handed over the charge of the post of Operation Section, Karampudi after you have joined duty at Macherla as AAE/constn. to your successor, Operation Section, Karampudi. You have also not closed the work orders operated by you during the period you have worked in Operation Section, Karampudi. This constitutes misconduct on your under Reg. 6 (XXXVI) of Board s Employees Discipline and Appeal Regulations. GROUNDS FOR THE CHARGE : After your joining duty at Macherla on 3/01/1984 as AAE/constn. you have not handed over the proper charge to your previous office in complete shape to your successor. CHARGE V : You have not properly handed over the charge of the post of construction section, Macherla till this day, after your abstention from duty with effect from 4/05/1984, F. N. You have also not closed the work orders operated by you in the Construction Section, Macherla. This constitutes misconduct under Reg. 6 (XXXVI) of Board s Employees Disciplinary and Appeal
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
