The framing of charges by an Enquiry Officer does not invalidate disciplinary proceedings, and modified punishments can be upheld if deemed proportionate.

ORDER :

1. Seeking to set aside the Enquiry Report dated 23.08.2018 of respondent No.3, Memo dated 20.04.2019 of respondent No.1 imposing the punishment of compulsory retirement and the modified punishment imposed by respondent No.2 vide Memo dated 27.01.2020, the present Writ Petition is filed.

2. Brief facts of the case are that while the petitioner was working as Additional Assistant Engineer, a charge sheet vide Memo No.DEE(Enq.II) NPDCL/Wgl./F.No.2283, D.No.10/18, dated 07.02.2018, framing four charges and calling for his explanation, was issued by respondent No.3, who is an incompetent authority to do so. However, the petitioner has submitted a detailed explanation on 27.06.2018 denying all the charges and requesting to absolve him from the charges. Respondent No.3 having not satisfied with the said explanation has initiated an oral enquiry vide proceedings dated 26.07.2018, conducted enquiry and also submitted his enquiry report vide letter No.DEE (Enq.II) NPDCL/Wgl./F.No. 2283, D.No.76/18, dated 23.08.2018, holding that the four charges levelled against the petitioner are proved. Basing on the said Enquiry Report, respondent No.1 has issued a show cause notice dated 06.09.2018, duly enclosing a copy of enquiry report, proposing to impose the major punishment in terms of Regulation 5 of APSEB Discipline & Appeal Regulations (in short ‘Regulations’), however without specifying as to which major punishment was sought to be imposed, and the same is contrary to Regulation 10 of the Regulations. To the said show cause notice dated 06.09.2018, petitioner has submitted a detailed explanation on 26.11.2018 along with lists to prove his innocence and to substantiate his contentions that the findings of the Enquiry Officer are not correct. However, without considering the same in proper perspective, respondent No.1 has imposed the punishment of compulsory retirement from service vide proceedings dated 20.04.2019. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner has filed an appeal before respondent No.2, who passed the impugned modified order dated 27.01.2020. Questioning the same, the petitioner has filed the present Writ Petition.

3. Heard Sri P.V. Ramana, learned senior counsel, representing Sri Maddela Ravinder, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Mir Aqueel Ali, learned Standing Counsel, for the respondents.

4. Learned senior counsel has contended that respondent No.2 while deciding the appeal filed by the petitioner instead of reducing the punishment imposed on the petitioner has enhanced the punishment in the form of passing modified order without issuing any notice in the appeal. Therefore, the modified order dated 27.01.2020 is contrary to APSEB Regulations, more particularly Regulation 15 thereof, and also violative of principles of natural justice. Learned senior counsel has further submitted that the findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer are contrary to the material available on record and are based on surmises and conjectures. Therefore, respondent No.2 ought to have imposed any minor penalty by taking into consideration 19 years of service of the petitioner as Additional Assistant Engineer in the respondent Corporation. Learned senior counsel has strenuously contended that the remedy should not be worse than the problem and respondent No.2 has erred in imposing the enhanced punishment and if respondent No.2 was not inclined to reduce the punishment imposed on the petitioner, he ought to have simply dismissed the appeal or else permitted the petitioner to withdraw the appeal. As such, respondent No.2 is not justified in imposing the enhanced punishment without issuing any notice. Hence, it is prayed to allow the Writ Petition. Reliance has been placed on:

1) Managing Director, ECIL, Hyderabad v. B. Karunakar, (1993) 4 SCC 727

2) Oryx Fisheries Private Limited v. Union of India, (2010) 13 SCC 427

5. Per contra, the learned Standing Counsel has contended that based on two reports submitted by the Superintending Engineer