ORDER :

1. Heard the Learned Counsel for the Petitioners and Government Pleader for Higher Education and Learned counsel for Respondents.

2. The present Writ Petition is filed praying to issue a Writ of Certiorari by calling the records relating to the Memo No. SE/OP/Wgl/Estt./VI-D.No. 1844/04 dated 27.10.2004 on the file of 2nd respondent and as confirmed in Memo No. CGM (HRD)/GM(S)/AS(III)/J1/F.No. 286-D/04-7dated 31.01.2005 on the file of 1st respondent and quash by holding the same and consequently direct the respondents to reinstate the petitioner into service by granting all consequential and attendant benefits.

3. The case of the petitioner in brief, is as follows:

(a) The 3rd respondent vide Memo No. DEE/E.No. NPDCL/ Wgl/E.No. 1498/04-D.No. 503/04, dated 26.02.2004 framed 4 (Four) charges against the petitioner, alleging that the petitioner had collected money from 13 consumers of Nekkonda Mandal and had not remitted the complete and difference amount of Rs.3,014/- and the 3rd respondent had showed Lr.No. AAO/ERO/NSPT/JAO/ESTT/VI/D.No. 15/04, dated 21.01.2004 and Procgs. No. SE/OP/Wgl/ ADM/VI/D. No. 134/04 dated 14.02.2004 are the grounds for the charge.

(b) All 4 (Four) charges against the petitioner attract violation of Rule 4 (XXVI) but to project the case as grave, the 3rd respondent had stated that the alleged misconduct constitutes violation of Rule 4 (XXVI), (XLI) and 4 (XLIV) and also under A.P.N.C.D.L discipline and appeal rules No. 6 (V) (XXXI) and (XLV).

(c) Petitioner had submitted his explanation through a representation to the 3rd respondent, requesting to consider the explanation of the petitioner and to drop the proposed action against the petitioner.

(d) The 2nd respondent then issued the 2nd show cause notice vide Memo No. SE/Op/Wgl/Estt.U1/D.No. 1509/04 dated 25.05.2004 proposing the punishment of ‘termination form service’, without considering the explanation of the petitioner and without application of mind and simply extracting the charges stated and the findings of the enquiry officer and issued the final orders vide Memo No. SE/OP/Wgl/Estt./VID. No. 1844/04 dated 27.10.2004.

(e) Moreover, the punishment ‘Termination’ is not incorporated in regulation 5 of A.P. State Transmission Corporation Ltd., Employees Disciplinary and Appeal Regulations. Respondent Authorities are to follow the procedure laid down under Regulation 10 of A.P. State Transmission Corporation (APSEB) Employees and Appeal Regulation before imposing the penalty but the respondent authorities had not followed any such procedure.

(f) Under the said regulations, the Punishment of Termination is synonymous with the Punishment of Dismissal from service, the Director Personnel is the Disciplinary Authority for the post of LDC (Junior Assistant), shown at Class-III, category-1 Officer. The Concerned Authority too, has to impose the punishment of Termination with concurrence of the manager (General Services) but the 2nd respondent issued the punishment of termination contrary to the said regulation. Hence the Writ Petition.

4. The Counter Affidavit on behalf of 1st and 2nd respondents:

(a) The Petitioner had been terminated from the services on the charges of Tampering of PRs and Misappropriation of Departmental Funds, which was proved during the Departmental Enquiry and relieved from w.e.f 28.10.2004 vide Memo.No. AAO/ERO/R/HNK/Estt./D.No. 371/04, dt. 28.10.2004.

(b) The Appeal preferred by the petitioner had been rejected by the Chief General Manager (HRD)/NPDCL/Warangal vide Memo No. CGM (HRD)/GM(S)/ AS.III/J1/F.286-D/04-7 dated 31.01.2005.

(c) The Petitioner had been kept under suspension w.e.f 16.01.2004 in the public interest pending enquiry. The 2nd respondent had appointed The Divisional Engineer, Warangal as Enquiry Officer and issued the Charge Sheet framing 4 (Four) charges.

(d) The said charges against the petitioner constitute misconduct under APNPDCL Service Conduct Regulation No. 4 (XXVI), (XII), and 4 (XIV) and also under APNPDCL Disci