2025:APHC:2153 APHC010143122

012 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH [345 AT AMARAVATI

7]

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

WEDNESDAY, THE EIGHTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N WRIT PETITION No: 11601 OF 2012 Between:

M.Madhusudhan …Petitioner AND Government of Andhra Pradesh Rep. by its Prl. Secretary, Electricity Department, Secretariat Hyderabad and two others. …Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri G.Bhaskar Rao Counsel for the Respondents:1. Sri P.Lakshmana Rao

2. Ld. Govt. Pleader for General Administration

3. Sri V.R.Reddy Kovvuri Ld. Standing Counsel For APSPDCL The Court made the following order:

1. The petitioner is challenging the proceedings dated

15.02.2011 whereby the petitioner was imposed punishment of withholding of two increments without cumulative besides treating the suspension period as suspension only.

2. The petitioner, while working as Assistant Divisional Engineer was charged of using unparliamentary language against the Operation & Management staff on 17.08.2010 in a drunken condition, an enquiry was conducted and the enquiry officer proposed the punishment of withholding of two increments with cumulative effect. The disciplinary authority, after considering the enquiry report, imposed the punishment of withholding of two increments without cumulative effect vide proceedings dated 15.02.2011. The petitioner preferred the appeal before the appellate authority which was rejected vide proceedings dated 13.10.2011.

3. The punishment of withholding of two annual increments without cumulative effect is a minor punishment, which is imposed on the petitioner for his misconduct and misbehaviour with the staff of the respondents. It is also submitted in the counter filed on behalf of the respondents that the punishment was imposed only after conducting a detailed enquiry and that the petitioner also participated in the enquiry. It is also submitted in the counter that the charges framed against the petitioner were proved and as such, the disciplinary authority taken disciplinary action against the petitioner.

4. Considering the submissions, this Court finds no grounds to interfere with the well considered order of the disciplinary authority.

5. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed without costs.

6. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this writ petition shall stand closed.

____________________ JUSTICE HARINATH. N BV