Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(AP) 18341
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
Nyapathy Vijay, J
Y RAMA REDDY – Appellant
Versus
THE AP GENCO – Respondent
WRIT PETITION NO: 26892/2024
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Kasa Jaganmohan Reddy
For the Respondents: Nagaraju Naguru, M Ravindra, K. Krishnabushan Chowdary
A disciplinary enquiry cannot be sustained on vague and indefinite charges. Procedural fairness and natural justice require each article of charge to be supported by a specific statement of imputation to allow the delinquent employee a reasonable opportunity to defend themselves.
Headnote:The case involves a challenge to a punishment order issued under the APSEB Employees Revised Conduct Discipline and Appeal Regulations. The petitioner, a Junior Personnel Officer, was penalized with the stoppage of increments and monetary recovery following a disciplinary enquiry into alleged financial discrepancies and record tampering at a canteen. The court found that the punishment was based on charges that were not sufficiently supported by the statement of imputations. The primary issue was whether the disciplinary proceedings were vitiated due to vague charges. The court held that for a disciplinary enquiry to comply with the principles of natural justice and procedural fairness, there must be a distinct article of charge supported by a detailed statement of imputation. Referencing Rule 20(3)(ii) of the A.P.C.S(CCA) Rules, 1991, the court reasoned that the lack of correlation between the charges and the imputations rendered the charge-sheet vague and indefinite. In the light of the above, the writ petition is allowed, and the impugned order of punishment issued vide Memo No.JS(Per)/DS(Estt)/AS(REg)/PO-Panels NT/49/2014 dated 16.05.2018 is set-aside.
Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased tomay be pleased to pass orders particularly one in the nature of mandamus declaring the orders of the 2ndrespondent in Memo No. JS(Per)/DS/(Estt)/AS (Reg) PO-Panels NT/ 49/2014, dt. 16.5.2018 of the 1st respondent as vitiated and consequential orders Memo No. CGM (Admn, IS andERP) DS (E) AS (PNT and Reg)/49/2014 dt.7.1.2022 of the 3rd respondent are liable set aside and the petitioner is entitled for counting of his service and seniority from the date of promotion of the 4th respondent in the cadre of Personnel Officer for further promotion and consequently direct the respondents to consider his case for promotion to the post of Asst Secretary taking his service from the date of promotion of 4th respondent who is his immediate junior and grant
IA NO: 1 OF 2024
Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased may be pleased to suspend the orders of the 3rd respondents in Memo No. CGM (Admn, IS and ERP) DS (E) AS (PNTand Reg)/49/2014 dt. 7.1.2022 pending disposal of the above writ petition and pass
IA NO: 2 OF 2024
Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased may be pleased to direct the respondents to keep the post of Asst Secretary due to arise on promotion of the incumbent Asst Secretary in the place of Dy. Secretary who is retiring on 1.12.2024 pending disposal of the above writ petition and grant
IA NO: 1 OF 2025
Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased pleased to direct the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for the post of Asst Secretary due to arise on promotion of the incumbent Asst Secretary in the place of Dy. Secretary pending disposal of the above writ petition and grant such other relief as may be deemed just and necessary in the interests of justice and pass
IA NO: 2 OF 2025
Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased Pleased to receive the counter copies on record by allowing the leave petition in the above Writ Petition and pass
Counsel for the Petitioner:
1. KASA JAGANMOHAN REDDY
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. NAGARAJU NAGURU
2. M RAVINDRA
3. K.KRISHNABUSHAN CHOWDARY SC For APGENCO
The Court made the following:
O R D E R:
This writ petition is filed declaring the Memo No.JS(Per)/DS/(Estt)/AS (Reg) PO-Panels NT/49/2014, dated 16.05.2018 issued by 1st Respondent as vitiated by consequential Memo dated 07.01.2022 issued by the 3rd Respondent as arbitrary and illegal.
The facts leading to filing of the writ petition are as under:
Petitioner joined the Respondent-Corporation in the year 1996 and was promoted as Junior Personnel Officer (JPO) in the year 2010. The Petitioner was posted in Canteen attached to RTPP, Yerraguntla and has been discharging his duties regularly. While so, a charge memo was issued on 09.01.2015 to the Petitioner along with two others, wherein certain allegations were raised against the Petitioner with regard to discrepancies in the stock register, cash register, milk register, cash collection daily registers and allegations akin thereto.
The statement of imputation was issued and the total loss was assessed at Rs.1,03,883.76/-. Five (5) witnesses were cited to sustain the charge against the Petitioner and four (4) documents were cited to substantiate the allegation against the Petitioner. In the enquiry, the charges against the Petitioner were proved and a punishment of stoppage of two increments with cumulative effect besides recovery of Rs.51,942/- ou
