HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA WRIT PETITION No. 32100 OF 2013

O R D E R:

In this Writ Petition, Memo dated 10.07.2013 and consequential Appellate Authority Order dated 03.10.2013 is under challenge.

2. Petitioner was appointed as a Lower Division Clerk (LDC) on 12-05-1998 under B.P.Ms.No.36 dated 18-05-1997. Subsequently, he was promoted as Upper Division Clerk (UDC) in September 2008 and posted at the Electricity Revenue Office (ERO), Kothagudem. While serving in this capacity, he was issued show cause notice dated 06-03-2009 by the Superintending Engineer proposing departmental action against him based on certain lapses, which were outlined in the preliminary report submitted by the Accounts Officer (Revenue) dated 30-09-2008 and to award the punishment of stoppage of three annual grade increments with cumulative effect. Petitioner submitted reply, though not convincing, taking a lenient view, the Superintending Engineer, who had issued show cause notice, passed final order on 30-06-2009, imposing punishment of stoppage of two increments with cumulative effect. While the Appeal was pending, the Chief General Manager (Human Resources & Development) [CGM(HRD)], set aside both the show cause notice dated 06-03-2009 and the final order dated 30-06-2009 through proceedings dated 19-01-2010. However, the CGM(HRD) ordered a de novo enquiry without assigning any valid reason. According to petitioner, service conditions of the employees in the establishment are governed by the Discipline and Appeal Regulations, specifically Regulation 15, which delineates the powers of the Appellate Authority. As per Regulation 15(1)(i), the Appellate Authority has power to consider whether punishment imposed is sustainable based on established facts and whether the facts constitute sufficient grounds for action. The Appellate Authority can also decide on the adequacy or inadequacy of the imposed punishment under Clause 15(c). Regulation 15(1)(ii) stipulates that in cases where enhanced punishment is being considered under Clause (iv), (vi) to (viii) of Regulation 5, an enquiry must be conducted under Regulation 10. In the present case, the CGM (HRD), while ordering a de novo enquiry, did not specify whether the intent was to enhance the punishment under Regulation 5. Therefore, the Appellate Authority exceeded its jurisdiction by appointing the Senior Accounts Officer (P & GT) NPDCL as the Enquiry Officer under Regulation 15, rendering the proceedings illegal and void.

Subsequently, the Chairman and Managing Director (CMD) appointed the General Manager (Audit), APNPDCL, Warangal, as the Enquiry Officer to conduct enquiry under Regulation 10(2)(a) of the APSEB Employees’ Discipline and Appeal Regulations through letter dated 09-03-2010. Petitioner, having served as LDC in the Town ERO, Khammam from July 2004 to September 2008, was allocated Manchukonda (Slab) Section during the period in question. His primary responsibility as LDC was to maintain ledgers supplied by Private Accounting Agencies and to note down the payable amounts for consumers, who would then make payments accordingly. Since the ledgers were printed, any question of manipulation or alteration of records does not arise. It is stated, for administrative reasons, the Assistant Accounts Officer (ERO) issued the Memo dated 01-08-2008 directing petitioner to hand over all records related to Manchukonda Section to ERO (Rural), Khammam and to obtain records pertaining to slab services from Konjerla and Chintakani Sections. Petitioner complied with the memo and handed over all relevant records before being promoted to UDC in September 2008 and subsequently transferred to ERO Kothagudem.

While serving at ERO Kothagudem, petitioner was charge-sheeted on 07-08-2010; charges primarily revolved around the alleged unauthorized transfer of amounts from one account to another. Petitioner submitted an effective explanation denying the allegations and contended that he had no authority to transf