IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY. THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT the honourable SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N WRIT PETITION NO: 33985 OF ?ni9 :: AMARAVATI FEBRUAR Between: U. Chandra Sekharam, S/o Sri U.Siddeshwar MW Apartments, Seethammadhara, Visakhapatnam 500013 Rao, aged 57 years, r/o Flat Street No. 303, KRM Colony, Sivalayam ...PETITIONER AND 1. Eastern Power Distribution Company of A.P. Limited, Corporate Office, P&T Colony, Seethammadhara, Visakhapatnam Represented by its Chairman & Managing Director 2. Chief General Manager (HRD), Eastern Power A.P. Limited, Corporate Office, Visakhapatnam 500013 5000013 Distribution Company of P&T Colony, Seethammadhara, ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the arcumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue an order direction or writ particularly one in the nature of writ Of mandamus or any other appropriate order (i) declaring proceedings Memo No. HRD/D/PO-ll/F.No.432/ 08/ D.No. 196/09 dated 28.3. 009 imposing the punishment of stoppage of two increments with cumulative effect without the . , . conducting enquiry as illegal and void; (ii) e aring the Appellate Authority order vide Memo No. HRD/DC/PO-II/F. No 850/09 (LF.432/08) /D.No. 605/09 dated 8.10.2009 and the review orders vide proceedings Memo No.HRD/DC/PO D. No.501/10 dated 25.09.2010 ll/F.No. 850/09 (LF 432/08) and order in Memo No. HRD/DC/PO- ll/F.No.850/09 (LF 432/08)D.No.305/11 dated 02.05.2011 are illegal and increments with all consequential years term from the date of imposition of the arbitrary; (iii) and consequently restore the i benefits after expiry of two penalty: LA. NO: 1 OF 2012fWPMP Mn- Petition under Section 151 stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the respondents to release the two increments which with held with cumulative effect by suspending the Memo No. HRD/D/PO- II/F.N0.432/O8/D.N0.196/09 dated 28.3.2009. 43229 OF 2019} CPC praying that in the circumstances were Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI V. Counsel for the Respondent Nos. PADMANABHA RAO 1 & 2: SRI V. V. SATISH (SC for APEPDCL) The Court made the following; ORDER APHC010763772012 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3457] MONDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N WRIT PETITION No: 33985 OF 2012 Between: ...Petitioner U.Chandra Sekharam AND Eastern Power Distribution Company of A.P. Ltd., and another. Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri V.Padmanabha Rao Counsel for the Respondents: Sri V.V. Satish The Court made the following order: 1. This writ petition is filed challenging the proceedings of the respondents, dated 28.03.2009, whereby the petitioner was imposed with the punishment of stoppage of two increments with cumulative effect. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner, while working as General Manager, was issued a notice dated 01.04.2008, calling upon him to submit an explanation as to why the punishment of stoppage of two increments with cumulative effect should not be imposed. ...Respondents show cause -2- W.P. No.33985 of 2012 The petitioner submitted his explanation on 14.05.2008. The respondents after examining the explanation of the petitioner issued the proceedings dated 28.03.2009. Challenging the same, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the appellate authority, and the review before the revisional authority was in vain. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition is filed. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court rendered in Dharampal Arora v. Punjab State Electricity Board & another\ wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that a major punishment cannot be imposed without conducting any enquiry. 3. The respondents filed their detailed counter, inter alia, stating that the disciplinary authority examined the reply to the show cause notice and perused the material on record. It is also stated that the reply of the petitioner was not convincing and such, the orders of punishment of stoppage of two increments with cumulative effect were issued. The appeal preferred by the petitioner was placed before the 60*^ meeting of the Board of Directors, and the appellate authority confirmed the order of punishment. The petitioner submitted a review before the Board once again, but the Board declined to take up the review. as 'v ^ Appeal (civil) 5162 of 2j306 decided on 22.11.2006 -3- W.P. No.33985 of 2012 4. The learned standing counsel appearing for the respondents submits that, as per the A.P.S.E.B. Disciplinary and Appeal Regulations, the stoppage of increments with cumulative effect is not a major penalty. He has drawn the attention of this Court to Regulations 7(a) and 10 of the A.P.S.E.B. Disciplinary and Appeal Regulations, which were adopted by the respondents, stating that the stoppage of increments with cumulative effect is considered as a minor penalty. Therefore, there was no need to conduct a departmental enquiry unless the disciplinary authority wishes to impose a major penalty, in which case a regular enquiry would have to be conducted. 5. In the present case, as seen from the show cause notice, dated 01.04.2008, the respondents called for an explanation from the petitioner regarding orders issued to one S. Ramesh Raju, L.D.C., working on a deputation basis. After examining the explanation submitted by the petitioner, the first respondent observed that the explanation was not convincing and imposed the punishment of stoppage of two increments with cumulative effect. This would suffice to conclude that the respondents, without conducting any enquiry, have issued the impugned proceedings. The stoppage of increments of an employee with cumulative effect will have a cascading effect on the benefits W.P. No.33985 of 2012 due to the employee on account of their service with the employer. 6. Considering the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned standing counsel for the respondents, this Court is inclined to set aside the impugned proceedings, which were not issued after a thorough enquiry, affording the petitioner to represent his case. The punishment imposed on the petitioner is solely based on his explanation. which cannot be sustained under the scrutiny of law. 7. Hence, the order dated 28.03.2009 passed by the respondents is set aside, and accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. 8. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this writ petition shall stand closed. That Rule Nisi has been made absolute as above. Witness the Hon’ble the Chief Justice Sri Dhiraj Singh Thakur on this Monday, Twenty Fourth day of February, Two Thousand and Twenty Five. //TRUE COPY// section officer To 1. The Chairman & Managing Director, Eastern Power Distribution Company of A.P. Limited, Corporate Office, P & T Colony, Seethammadhara, Visakhapatnam 5000013. 2. The Chief General Manager (HRD), Eastern Power Distribution Company of A.P. Limited, Corporate Office, P & T Colony, Seethammadhara, Visakhapatnam 500013 3. One CC to Sri V. Padmanabha Rao, Advocate [OPUC] 4. One CC to Sri V. V. Satish (SC for APEPDCL) [OPUC] 5. Three CD Copies. ssb HIGH COURT DATED:24/02/2025 X 2 8 MAR 2025 ^ . Current section ORDER WP.No.33985 of 2012 ALLOWING THE W.P. WITHOUT COSTS