The present writ petition has been filed to declare a Memo.no.CE/Disc.Cases/AS-XX/611/NA92)/95-7 Dt.17.8.1998 of the Andhra Pradesh State Electricity Board (for short "the Board") and a consequential memo No.CE(DMisc.cases)/DM-XX/6111/Na92)/95-8 dt.30.8.1999 issued by it's successor , the 1st respondent and to set them aside.

2. The petitioner was employed as Revenue Cashier in the erstwhile Board. In September 1994, a complaint was made against the petitioner by a press reporter B.Anjiah of Machareddy Mandal about temporary misappropriation of a sum of Rs.1,003/- paid by a consumer by name Reshma Bee. vide memo dated 20th July, 1994 the petitioner was allegedly 'warned' by the Board.

3. However, an enquiry was ordered against the petitioner and two others for the same alleged misconduct and charge sheet dated 3.2.1996 was issued to the petitioner. He gave a reply to the charge sheet denying the charges on 08.3.1996. A Superintending Engineer of the Board was appointed as the Enquiry Officer. He submitted a report dt.20.9.1996 stating that the petitioner had committed misconduct of temporary misappropriation.

4. Basing on the said report, the Secretary of the Board accepted the findings of the Enquiry Officer and provisionally proposed to punish him by "keeping him at minimum of time scale for a period of two years" and permit him to "earn two increments thereafter". Accordingly he issued a show cause notice dated 31.10.1997 to the petitioner to show cause why the said punishment cannot be imposed on the petitioner. The petitioner submitted explanation dated 3.12.1997 to the said show cause notice and pleaded that it was a minor mistake and that his conduct be excused . Thereafter, the Member Secretary of the Andhra Pradesh State Electricity Board vide proceedings in Memo No.CE/Disc.Cases/AS-XX/611/NA(2)/95-7, dated 17.8.1998 confirmed the punishment of keeping the petitioner at the minimum of time scale for a period of two years and permitted him to earn increments thereafter.

5. Challenging the same, the petitioner preferred an appeal under regulation 18 of the AP State Electricity Board Discipline and Appeal Regulations on 8.1.1999.

6. In the meantime, there was a bifurcation of Andhra Pradesh State Electricity Board into APTRANSCO and APGENCO under the provisions of AP Electricity Reform Act, 1998. By virtue of powers conferred under Section 23 of the said Act and Sub-Rule (2) of Rule -6 and Sub-Rule (5) of Rule (7) of AP Electricity Reform (Transfer Scheme) Rules, 1999, the Government of Andhra Pradesh formed four distribution companies namely, Eastern Power Distribution Company of Andhra Pradesh Limited, Southern Power Distribution Company of Andhra Pradesh Limited, Central Power Distribution Company of Andhra Pradesh Limited and Northern Power Distribution Company of Andhra Pradesh Limited in T.O.O.(ACS) Ms.No.6, dated 9.4.2002. In exercise of authority conferred under Article 30-D of Articles of Associations of DISCOMS, the Managing Directors of 4 DISCOMs are re-designated as Chairman-cum-Managing Director and the CMD/APTRANSCO ceased to be the Chairperson and Managing Director of the Board of 4 DISCOMS with effect from 9.4.2002. These facts have been placed on record by R1 .In this view of the matter, the claim of the petitioner has to be dealt with by the Northern Power Distribution Company of Andhra Pradesh Limited, Warangal.

7. The said Northern Power Distribution Company of Andhra Pradesh Limited, represented by its Chairman and Managing Director, being a successor of the Board and the 1st petitioner , is a necessary and proper party to the writ petition and is suomoto impleaded as respondent No.5 in the writ petition in exercise of the powers of this Court under Rule 16(a) of the Writ Proceedings Rules, 1977.

8. The petitioner contended in para 9 ground (v) of the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition that the memo dated 17.8.1998 was issued by the Member Secretary of the Board, who was th