i IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE SEVENTH DAY OF MA>^ TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT the honourable dr justice VENKATA WRIT PETITION NO: 10888 OF ?niQ JYOTHIRMAI PRATA^ Between: Doddi Satya Venkata Rameswara Rao, S/o. Late Yerraiah aged 47 hn!' sta p;,„i „ — »«.i. ...Petitioner AND Visakhapatnam Steel Plant Visakhapatnam, Rep. by Its General Manager 2. The Deputy General Manager, (Oprn), OHP 86 lOSA - RMHP and (RMHP)-HOT and Appellate Authority Ispat Nigam Limited, Visakhapatnam Steel The Rashtriya Plant, Visakhapatnam ...Respondents Petition under Article 226 of the the circumstances stated i be pleased to issue a writ, order or direction nature of Writ of Mandamus to declare the passing the impugned orders dismissing the petitioner from Constitution of India praying that in in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may more particularly one in the action of the respondent No.2 iin No.HR/RMHP(115479)/18/dt.21.3.2018 service without issuing any show cause notice or opportunity and the consequential orders in Appeal No. No.HR/RMHP(115479)/18/dt.20.6.2018 passed by the 3rd respondent as arbitrary, illegal and violation of principles of natural justice and contrary CDA Rules of Rashtriya Ispat Nigam Limited, Vishakapatnam Steel Plant and consequently direct the respondents to continue the to petitioner in orders HR/RMHP(115479)/18/dt.21.3.2018 passed by the 2nd respondent consequential orders in Appeal No.HR/RMHP(115479)/18/dt.20.6.201 8. by setting service aside the impugned No. and the lA NO: 1 OF 2019 Petition under Section 151 CPC stated in the affidavit filed i praying that in the circumstances in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the respondents to continue the petitioner in service by suspending the impugned orders No. HR/RMHP(115479)/18/dt.21.3.20 18 passed by the 2nd respondent and the consequential orders in Appeal No. HR/RMHP(115479)/18/dt.20.6.2018 passed by the 3rd respondent pending disposal of the writ petition. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI. P NAGENDRA Counsel for the Respondents: KIRAN KUMAR VADLAMUDI The Court made the following order: REDDY 1 APHC010242672019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) 0M0 [3396] WEDNESDAY, THE SEVENTH DAY OF MAY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA WRIT PETITION NO: 10888/2019 Between: Doddi Satya Venkata Rameswara Rao ...PETITIONER AND The Rashtriya ispat Nigam Limited and Others ...RESPONDENT{S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1.P NAGENDRA REDDY Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1.KIRAN KUMAR VADLAMUDI The Court made the following ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India with the following prayer for: “...to issue a writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus to declare the action of the respondent No. 2 in passing the impugned orders No. HR/RMHP115479/18/dated 21.03.2018 dismissing the petitioner from service without issuing any show cause notice or opportunity and the consequential orders in Appeal No. HR/RMHP115479/18/dated 20.06.2018 passed by the 3rd respondent as arbitrary, illegal and violation of principles of natural justice and contrary to CDA Rules of Rashtriya Ispat Nigam Limited, Vishakapatnam Steel Plant and consequently direct the respondents to continue the petitioner in service by setting aside the impugned orders No.HR/RMHP115479/18/dated 21.03.2018 passed by the 2nd respondent and the consequential orders in No. HR/RMHP115479/18/dated 2. Heard Sri P.Nagendra Reddy M. Shanmukha Teja, Vadlamudi, learned Standing 20.06.2018 ... ’ Counsel for the petitioner representing Sri Kiran Kumar counsel for the respondent Nos. 2 and Sri learned counsel and 3. 3. Learned counsel for the terminated from petitioner would submit that the service by the respondent-authorities petitioner was without any notice v/c/e conviction in C.C.No.46 of proceedings dated 21.03.2018 in the light of his 2010 on the file of Principal Special which was confirmed in Criminal Appeal i. Court. Learned Judge for C.B.I Cases, Visakhapatnam e., Crl.A.No.1407 of 2017 by this counsel would further submit that nothing is brought to his approaching Hon'ble Supreme Court notice about the petitioner and obtaining suspension of the sentence of imprisonment passed counsel would further submit any order regarding the against him. Learned appropriate orders. that the Court may pass 4- Learned Standing Counsel the notice of this Court that i Appeal Rules of RINL for the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 brought to . Discipline and (for short C.D.A in the light of Rule 31 of Conduct (Rastriya Ispath Nigham Limited) Rules), the respondent-authorities have every right to terminate the service of the employee in case of conviction. 5. Considering the submissions placed on record, there i faced trial in C.C.No.46 of 2010 Cases, Visakhapatnam made and a fair look at the material the petitioner herein for C.B.I '•3(1)(c) r/w 13(2) of no dispute about the fact that IS on the file of Principal Special Judge for the charges under Sections 3 P.C.Act. He was convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of five (5) years and to pay a fine of Rs.50,000/-. Having aggrieved by the said judgment, the petitioner preferred appeal before this Court in CrI.A.No. 1407 of 2017 and the Co-Ordinate Bench of this Court dismissed the appeal confirming the trial Court judgment. 6. It is relevant to extract the Rule 31 of Conduct, Discipline and Appeal Rules of RINL (Rastriya Ispath Nigham Limited) hereunder; 31.0 SPECIAL PROCEDURE IN CERTAIN CASES: Notwithstanding anything contained in Rule 26 or 27 or 28, the disciplinary authority may impose any of the penalties specified in Rule 24 in any of the following circumstances:- The employee has been convicted on a criminal charge, or on the strength of facts or conclusions arrived at by a judicial trial; or Where the disciplinary authority is satisfied for reasons to be recorded by it in writing that it is not reasonably practicable to hold an enquiry in the manner provided in these Rules; or Where the Board/Chairman/Managing Director is satisfied that in the interest of security of the Company, it is not expedient to hold any enquiry in these rules.” ii. 7. In the light of the Rule position referred supra, the impugned order does not brook any interference of this Court. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. There is no order as to costs. Pending applications, if any, shall stand closed. Sd/-A. VIJAYABABU assistant registrar //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, 1. One CC to Sri. P Nagendra Reddy Advocate [OPUC] 2. One CC to Sri. Kiran Kumar Vadlamudi Advocate [OPUC] C D c^Pl^k s high court DATED:07/05/2025 ORDER WP.No.10888 of 2019 # 2 3 SEP 2025 Jg) dismissing the wp WITHOUT COSTS