P.V. SANJAY KUMAR, J :-The unsuccessful petitioner in WP No.6134 of 1998 assails the order dated 13.3.2003 passed by the learned Single Judge dismissing his writ petition.

2. In the writ petition, the appellant challenged the appellate order dated 25.7.1997 passed by the Chairman of the erstwhile AP State Electricity Board (presently APTRANSCO). By the said order, the appellate authority modified the punishment, imposed upon the appellant by the Member Secretary of the erstwhile Board, of removal from service to that of reduction by 30 ranks in the seniority list of Assistant Engineers (Electrical), treating the period from the date of removal to the date of reinstatement as 'dies non'.,

3. The appellant was subjected to disciplinary proceedings with regard to his alleged misbehaviour with the officials of the Board and other lapses/irregularities committed by him. In the first instance, the Divisional Engineer (Technical) was appointed as the Enquiry Officer. After conducting the enquiry, the Enquiry Officer submitted his report dated 14.6.1989 to the Member Secretary, APSEB, holding that two out of the three charges were held proved. Thereupon, the Member Secretary appointed the Superintendent Engineer, Enquiries, as the second Enquiry Officer, under memo dated 5.5.1990, stating that the report of the enquiry submitted by the Divisional Engineer/Enquiry Officer was set aside and calling upon the newly appointed Enquiry Officer to frame appropriate and specific charges and conduct a detailed enquiry. It appears that the appellant participated in the second enquiry for sometime and thereafter abstained. The Enquiry Officer submitted his report dated 30.11.1991 holding that the single charge framed by him against the appellant was duly proved. Basing on the said enquiry report, show-cause notice was issued to the petitioner on 30.4.1992, duly enclosing a copy of the report, and calling upon him to submit his explanation. Thereafter, the order dated 26.8.1993 was passed by the Member Secretary/Disciplinary Authority inflicting the punishment of removal from service upon the appellant.

4. Aggrieved thereby, the appellant preferred a departmental appeal to the Chairman of the Board who, by his order dated 25.10.1997, reduced the punishment to that of reduction in seniority.

5. In the writ petition, the appellant challenged the disciplinary action taken against him on various grounds. The substantial ground of attack raised by him before the learned Judge, and reiterated before us in this appeal, is that it was not open to the disciplinary authority to drop the earlier enquiry proceedings and conduct a de novo enquiry. Alternatively, Sri Pratap Narayan Sanghi, learned Counsel for the appellant contended that the denial of an opportunity of hearing to his client before a decision was taken to institute a de novo enquiry offended the principles of natural justice and accordingly, 10 vitiated the entire disciplinary proceedings. He placed reliance on the AP State Electricity Board Employees Discipline and Appeal Regulations and more specifically, Regulation 10 dealing with the procedure for imposing penalties. Regulation 10(2)(a), to the extent that it is relevant, reads as hereunder:

"In every case where it is proposed to impose on a member of a service any of the penalties specified in items (iv), (vi), (vii) and (viii) in Regulation 5, the authority competent to impose the penalty shall appoint an enquiry officer, who shall be superior in rank to the person on whom it is proposed to impose the penalty, or shall itself hold an enquiry either suo motu or on a direction from a higher authority. In every such case the grounds on which it is proposed to take action shall be reduced to the form of definite charge or charges, which shall be communicated to the person charged, together with a statement of the allegations on which each charge is based and of any other circumstances which it is proposed to take into consideration in passing order

Click Here to Read the rest of this document