The court affirmed that a penalty classified as minor does not require a full inquiry, and the procedural requirements for imposing such penalties were adequately met.

JUDGMENT :

1. The present Writ Appeal is directed against the order dated 25.04.2022 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.22919 of 2005 whereby the writ petition filed by the appellant challenging the disciplinary action culminating in the penalty and postponement of one increment without cumulative effect was dismissed. The appellant filed the underlying Writ Petition No.22919 of 2005 challenging the final order of the respondent No.2 in Memo No.CMD/CGM(HRD)/GM(S)/AS.III/PO.V/F.3197-C/04-2, dated 26-10-2004.

2. Heard the appellant (M. Narsimulu) who appeared party-in- person and Sri A. Chandra Shaker, learned Standing Counsel for Telangana State Northern Power Distribution Co. Ltd., (TGNPDCL) for the respondents and perused the record.

Factual matrix in brief

3. The appellant while working as Divisional Engineer at Kamareddy in the year 2003 was directed to appoint 32 Junior Linemen (contract). The appellant in compliance of the direction issued appointment and posting orders. It was alleged that the appellant diverted three of the Junior Linemen to the control room of the Division Office, contrary to the instructions. A show-cause notice vide Memo No.CGM(HRD)/GM(S)/AS-III/PO-V/F.No.3191- C/2004-1, dated 17.07.2004 was issued to the appellant calling upon the appellant to show-cause within fifteen (15) days as to why ‘severe disciplinary action including postponement of an increment with cumulative effect should not be taken on him’. The appellant submitted his explanation dated 27.07.2004. The disciplinary authority, after considering the explanation of the appellant, awarded the punishment of ‘postponement of an increment without cumulative effect’ vide Memo No. CMD/CGM (HRD)/GM(S)/AS.III/PO.V/F.3197-C/04-2, dated 26.10.2004. The appellant’s statutory appeal dated 09.09.2005 was rejected as time barred vide Memo No.CGM(HRD)/GM(S)/AS.III/PO.III/ F.No.3197-C/04-3, dated 26.09.2005. Aggrieved by the Memo dated 26.10.2004 imposing the punishment of postponement of increment without cumulative effect and the rejection of the appeal by Memo dated 26.09.2005, the appellant filed the underlying writ petition No.22919 of 2005, which was dismissed by the learned Single Judge by order dated 25.04.2022. Aggrieved by the same, the appellant has preferred the present Writ Appeal.

Contentions of appellant

4. The appellant (party-in-person) raised the following contentions:

i. The show-cause notice dated 17.07.2004 proposed a major penalty – postponement of increment with cumulative effect. Therefore, under Regulation 10(2)(a) of APSEB discipline and appeal regulations (for short ‘Regulation’), a full-fledged departmental enquiry by an enquiry officer was mandatory.

ii. The subsequent imposition of a minor penalty - postponement of an increment without cumulative effect does not cure the initial illegality of not holding an enquiry, when a major penalty was proposed.

iii. The appellant by placing reliance on two judgments of this Court in B. Mondaiah v. Andhra Pradesh Northern Power Distribution Company Ltd. and others, 2006 (8) SLR 780 and K. Samba Siva Rao v. Southern Power Distribution Company of AP Limited and others, 2010 (1) ALD 776 contended that the show-cause notice proposed a major penalty, and the employer is obligated to hold the departmental enquiry, even if a minor penalty is ultimately imposed.

iv. The disciplinary action against the appellant was vindictive, arising from his earlier W.P.No.17825 of 2004 which was filed concerning seniority.

Contentions on behalf of respondents

5. The learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents suppor