APHC010446072013 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3457] WEDNESDAY, THE EIGHTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N WRIT PETITION NO: 38493/2013 Between: V. Balaji Naik, ...PETITIONER AND The Southern Power Distribution Company Of Ap Limited and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. M KESAVA RAO Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. V R REDDY KOVVURI (SC FOR APCPDCL) 2. N SIVA REDDY(SC FOR APTRANSCO) The Court made the following Order: The petitioner is challenging the proceedings dated 07.09.2013, whereby the 3rd respondent passed orders dismissing the petitioner from service. The petitioner also seeks a direction from this Court for reinstatement, together with back wages, continuity of service and other attendant benefits. 2. The petitioner was appointed as a junior lineman (trainee) on 15.07.1999. It is submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that the petitioner was dismissed from service vide proceedings dated 16.03.2004. The said proceedings were issued HN, J W.P.No.38493_2013 2 in pursuance of a letter received from the Principal, Government ITI, Dhone of Kurnool District. Aggrieved by the order of dismissal, the petitioner filed W.P.No.6977 of 2004. This Court, vide order dated 22.10.2009, set aside the order of dismissal and granted liberty to the respondents to conduct a fresh disciplinary enquiry. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that, though the order of dismissal was set aside on 22.10.2009, the respondents have denied the relief granted to the petitioner by this Court and passed an order of reinstatement only on 18.06.2011. The learned counsel further submits that the petitioner is entitled to the wages from 22.10.2009 to 18.06.2011. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the petitioner was issued a show-cause notice on 05.08.2011, calling upon an explanation for producing a false ITI certificate. The petitioner submitted his explanation on 12.08.2011. Further, memos dated 25.08.2011 and 20.12.2012 were issued and explanation for all the said memos were submitted. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that, vide memo dated 31.10.2012, the petitioner was placed under suspension. On 29.12.2012, the enquiry officer issued a charge sheet and the petitioner submitted his reply on 09.01.2013. It is submitted that the HN, J W.P.No.38493_2013 3 enquiry officer concluded the enquiry proceedings without conducting any enquiry and unilaterally decided against the petitioner without providing an opportunity to the petitioner to substantiate his technical qualification. The impugned proceedings were issued by the Divisional Electrical Engineer, Narsaraopet. It is also submitted that the petitioner has no other effective alternative remedy, as the appeal before the superintendent engineer would only result in the passing of an order of concurrence with the order of dismissal. It is submitted that the appellate authority, the superintendent engineer, is a member of the concurrence committee. The appeal preferred before an officer who has already concurred for issuing the impugned proceedings would only be a futile attempt. As such, the learned counsel submits that the only effective remedy is to challenge the impugned proceedings, as the said proceedings were conducted without following the principles of natural justice. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner relies on Government of A.P. and others v. M.A.Majeed and another1, Ch. Appala Reddy v. Eastern Power Distribution Company of A.P., and others (W.A.No.491 of 2005), M. Vivekananda Murthy v. 1 2006 (1) ALD 823 (FB) HN, J W.P.No.38493_2013 4 Government of Andhra Pradesh and others 2, Hardwari Lal Appellant v. State of U.P. and others3 and Kulwant Singh Gill v. State of Punjab4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the conduct of an enquiry without following the principles of natural justice should to be set aside, as was upheld in the various judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner. The impugned proceedings in the present writ petition have been passed without according an opportunity to the petitioner and that had the petitioner been accorded an opportunity, he would have substantiated his educational qualification. As such, the petitioner prays for setting aside the impugned proceedings and seeks a direction for reinstatement, together with service benefits. 6. The learned Standing counsel for the respondents submits that a detailed enquiry was conducted and the petitioner was initially appointed on 15.07.1999 and the appointment was purely temporary, which would not confer any right for regularization. The petitioner was also required to furnish original certificates of qualification, proof of age, caste etc., at the time of joining. It is also stated in the order of appointment that any information which is found incorrect would result in termination of service. It is also 2 2023 (4) ALD 463 (AP) (DB) 3 AIR 2000 Supreme Court 277 4 1991 Supp (1) SCC HN, J W.P.No.38493_2013 5 submitted by the learned Standing counsel for the respondents that the petitioner has an effective alternative remedy of filing an appeal before the appellate authority, i.w., superintendent engineer. The extracts relating to competent authorities, which may impose penalties, were placed on record. As seen from the same, the committee members for O and M staff are as follows: PO (Terminal), DE/Technical and SAO of the Circle concerned. The superintendent engineer is not a part of the concurrence committee, and as such, the petitioner ought to have filed an appeal before the superintendent engineer for redressing his grievance. 7. It is also submitted that when the department received a letter dated 21.01.2002, which was issued by the Principal, Government ITI, Dhone of Kurnool District, there was no necessity for recording the statement of the member. It was for the petitioner to substantiate his educational qualification. It is also submitted that the technicality raised by the petitioner cannot withstand the scrutiny of law and is without merit. 8. Considering the submissions of both the learned counsel, the impugned proceedings cannot be interfered by this Court for the following reasons: HN, J W.P.No.38493_2013 6 a. As seen from the enquiry report, it is evident that the petitioner participated in the enquiry and the enquiry officer had recorded the depositions of the witnesses and also marked various exhibits. The enquiry report would also indicate that the petitioner had submitted his tenth class marks list and ITI certificates at the time of joining. The divisional engineer/operation has sent the ITI certificate to the superintendent engineer for verification and upon verification, it was found that the certificate produced by the petitioner was not genuine. The petitioner was initially dismissed from service on the strength of the report of the intelligence department, which was set aside by this court in W.P.No.6977 of 2004. The petitioner was reinstated into service and a fresh enquiry was conducted against the petitioner. An explanation was called for and the explanation was submitted. b. Perusal of the enquiry report would indicate that the petitioner had an ample opportunity to substantiate his certificates, which he did not opt for. 9. Considering the detailed manner in which the enquiry was conducted, this Court finds no grounds to interfere with the well- HN, J W.P.No.38493_2013 7 considered impugned proceedings. The judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner would not come to the rescue of the petitioner, as the facts are completely different in the present case. 10. With these observations the writ petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. ___________________ JUSTICE HARINATH.N Date: 08.01.2025 NKA HN, J W.P.No.38493_2013 8 349 HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N WRIT PETITION No.38493 of 2013 Date: 08.01.2025 NKA