Disciplinary proceedings initiated by appointing an Enquiry Officer prior to framing charges and issuing a show-cause notice contravene Regulation 10(2)(i), and any order passed without considering the delinquent employee's explanation or providing a reasoned, speaking decision violates principles of natural justice, rendering the proceedings void.

O R D E R:

The petitioner has filed this Writ Petition with the following prayer:

“to issue a writ or order or direction especially one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus (i) declare the impugned memo No.CMD/CGM(HRD)/JS/AS(DC)/F.No.3030-D2/10-9, dated 11.01.2013 issued by the 2nd respondent and consequential Memo No. CMD/CGM(HRD)/GM(S)/AS(DC)/PO D/F.No.3030-D2/10-11 dated 15.07.2013 issued by the 3rd respondent as illegal and arbitrary and set aside the same (ii) consequently direct the respondents to restore the deferred increments pursuant to the memo No.CMD/CGM(HRD)/JS/AS(DC)/F.No.3030-D2/10-9 dated 11.01.2013 issued by the 2nd respondent and consequential Memo No. CMD/CGM(HRD)/GM(S)/AS(DC)/PO D/F.No.3030-D2/10-11 dated l5.07.2013 issued by the 3rd duly granting all other consequential and other attendant benefits and pass such other order….”

02. Heard Sri K. Vasudeva Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri A. Chandra Shaker, learned Standing Counsel for the Northern Power Distribution Company Limited and perused the record.

03(a). Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was initially appointed as a Helper on 30.07.1993 in the erstwhile APSEB, thereafter appointed as Sub-Engineer in the year 2006 by way of transfer, and subsequently promoted as Additional Assistant Engineer in the year 2008. While the petitioner was discharging his duties as AAE (Operations), Asifabad, the respondent No.2, vide proceedings dated 11.02.2011, appointed an Enquiry Officer to frame charges and conduct enquiry.

03(b). It is contended that such procedure is contrary to Regulation 10(2)(i) of the APSEB Discipline & Appeal Regulations, which mandates that the Disciplinary Authority must first frame and issue a charge sheet, call for explanation from the delinquent employee, and only upon finding such explanation unsatisfactory, appoint an Enquiry Officer. The Enquiry Officer framed the charges vide memo dated 18.03.2011, thereby demonstrating a pre-determined and prejudiced approach against the petitioner from the very inception.

03(c). Learned counsel further submitted that though the petitioner submitted his explanation to the charges, the Enquiry Officer conducted no real enquiry in the eye of law. No witnesses were examined, no statements were recorded, and no opportunity was afforded to the petitioner to adduce defence evidence or to cross-examine any witness. Instead, the Enquiry Officer merely put certain prepared questions to the petitioner and obtained answers, and on that basis, recorded findings of guilt. Such a procedure, it is submitted, cannot be termed as a valid enquiry, either under the applicable Regulations or under the settled principles of natural justice.

03(d). Learned counsel further submitted that following submission of the enquiry report, the respondent No.2 issued a showcause notice dated 02.06.2012, to which the petitioner submitted a detailed explanation running into several pages. However, the Disciplinary Authority, without adverting to any of the submissions made therein, passed the impugned order dated 11.01.2013 imposing the penalty of stoppage of three increments with cumulative effect.

03(e). Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the respondent No.3. However, the Appellate Authority also, in a similarly mechanical manner, reiterated the submissions of the petitioner and rejected the appeal vide memo dated 15.07.2013 without independent consideration or reasoned findings.

03(f). It is further submitted that with regard to Charge No.1, the allegation pertains to non-return of six TR Books. The petitioner has consistently explained that at the time of his transfer, several TR Books were in circulation among O&M staff across three mandals, and despite repeated requests, no verification was conducted by the competent authorities. It is further ex