APHC010182782004 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI WRIT PETITION NO: 17394 of 2004 Bench Sr.No:-9 [3506] J.mohan Raju, Guntur District ...Petitioner Vs. Chairman M D A P Transco Tirupathi 2 and Others ...Respondent(s) ********** Advocate for Petitioner: VENKATESH KOSARAJU Advocate(s) for Respondent(s): V V SATISH (SC for APEPDCL), . CORAM : SRI JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN DATE : 6th November 2025 2 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN WRIT PETITION NO: 17394/2004 ORDER: The present writ petition is filed seeking the following relief: “ ..to issue appropriate Writ Order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus by calling for the records relating to and connected with the Proceedings No CMD/CGM/HRD/DS/AS III/PODC /D No 642/2004 dated 03.09.2004 and set aside the same holding it as illegal unjustified unconstitutional arbitrary violative of principles of natural justice and contrary to the statutory regulations and reinstate the petitioner to duty in the interest of justice..” 2. The petitioner was appointed as Lower Division Clerk with the 2nd respondent-Corporation and was posted at Gurajala relevant point of time. On account of loss of blank leafs of permanent receipt book, based on preliminary enquiry, the petitioner and other employees were placed under suspension with effect from 21.05.2001. Later, disciplinary proceedings came to be initiated against the petitioner and even a criminal case in crime No.70 of 2000, dated 13.06.2001, came to be registered against the petitioner and other officers involved in the incident for offences under Sections 409 and 420 of IPC. Insofar as the disciplinary proceedings were concerned, charge memo came to 3 be issued on 19.06.2002 setting out four charges and enquiry officer also came to be appointed for conducting enquiry. The first enquiry officer came to be replaced by another enquiry officer, who after conducting enquiry, stated to have issued a show cause notice and as the same came to be challenged by the writ petitioner in W.P.No.13676 of 2003, de-nova enquiry was conducted once again and ultimately enquiry report dated 21.05.2003 came to be submitted. 3. The enquiry officer, after considering the explanation of the petitioner and also examining the witnesses on behalf of Corporation, ultimately concluded that all the four charges were proved. Basing on the same, show cause notice was issued to the petitioner proposing further action and after considering the explanation submitted to the same, the 2nd respondent, by proceedings dated 20.03.2004, ordered the punishment of dismissal of the petitioner from service. The petitioner appealed the said order before the 1st respondent, who by proceedings dated 03.09.2004, partly allowed the appeal by modifying the punishment of dismissal of the petitioner from service to that of compulsory retirement. Assailing the same, the present writ petition has been filed. 4 4. Heard Sri K. Venkatesh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri V.V. Satish, learned Standing counsel for the respondent- Corporation. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner mainly contended that the explanation offered by the petitioner, both before the enquiry officer and the disciplinary authority, regarding the allegation of issuance of TR book No.293 at the very initial day did not contain complete set of 500 leafs and the said factum was immediately reported to the higher authority i.e., Assistant Account officer, was not taken into consideration and merely based on evidence of the witnesses who were examined during the enquiry, the respondents have come to conclusion that petitioner had committed mischief to siphon the money collected from the respective consumer, which caused revenue loss to the corporation. Such a finding, therefore, is clearly erroneous and unsustantiable. He further contended that the second enquiry officer did not provide sufficient opportunity to the petitioner to cross examine the witnesses through assistance of co- employees/legal personnel and thereby, he has been denied due opportunity of valid cross examination, which ultimately amounted violation of principles of natural justice. 5 6. Per contra, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent-Corporation tried to sustain both the impugned orders passed by the disciplinary authority and as confirmed by the appellate authority. In furtherance of the same, he submitted that admittedly, when PR book was issued on 12.02.2001, consisting of 500 receipts bearing serial Nos.14600-146500, it was incumbent upon any officer to notice any shortage of leafs and the same be brought to the notice of the issuing authority, rather petitioner chose to report the same only on 03.03.2001, much belatedly, which clearly demonstrates the device adopted by the petitioner to misuse the leafs and collect the revenues that otherwise in normal course accounted to the corporation. The evidence produced on behalf of the corporation, in particular testimony of the consumer, namely D. Ramanaiah, clearly established the factum of issuance of receipt No.146485 for an amount of Rs.12,331/-, which was one of such receipts the petitioner claimed to be missing. Therefore, the evidence on record clearly establishes that the petitioner indulged in misappropriation and siphoning of the amounts collected for Corporation and as the findings recorded in the enquiry report clearly warranted severe punishment, the 2nd respondent as well 6 as the 1st respondent rightly imposed punishment, which does not warrant any interference. 7. He further contended that despite the petitioner being granted sufficient opportunity to cross examine the witnesses of corporation as well as to lead evidence, if any, on his own, at no point of time he ever raised objection regarding insufficient opportunity, either to cross examine by himself or through external assistance. Therefore, the contention now raised by the petitioner is merely an afterthought. As the enquiry authority, the disciplinary authority and the appellate authority followed the procedure and provided fair opportunity of hearing to the writ petitioner, it cannot be said that there was violation of principles of natural justice. Hence, he pleaded for dismissal of the writ petition. 8. Perused the record and considered the submissions. 9. The main allegation against the petitioner was that while discharging his duties as Lower Division Clerk at Guruzala, he indulged in act of dereliction of duty and misappropriation of funds of Rs.12,331/-. In discharging of his duties, he was required to collect electricity charges from the consumers and pass on the 7 receipts for such collections. He was stated to be issued permanent receipt book bearing serial No.293, which consisted of 500 receipts in duplicate bearing serial No.146001146500. The said book was issued on 12.02.2001 from the office of Junior Accounts Officer. But only on 24.03.2001, the petitioner and the AAO, Guruzala, have intimated and certified that the aforesaid book was missing 20 receipts from serial Nos.14671 to 146490. However, one of the consumers from Dachepally, namely Ramanaiah, with service connection No.3694, produced receipt No.146485, against which an amount of Rs.12,331/- was stated to have been collected on 11.04.2001. As the said leaf was one among the missing 20 leafs, preliminary enquiry was conducted and the petitioner was placed under suspension on 21.05.2001, and even criminal case was registered against him for the offences under Sections 409 and 420 of IPC. 10. Thereafter, enquiry came to be conducted by enquiry officer for the charges communicated to him and in the enquiry, the JAO who issued the book was examined as OPW1, the consumer with service No.3694, who was issued receipt No.146485, was examined as PW2 and LDC who was stated to have witnessed the consumer paying the amount to petitioner 8 was examined as PW3 and lastly, JAO was examined as PW4. On behalf of the petitioner besides him, one Venkateshwarlu, LDC, was examined. The enquiry officer, after detail examination of evidence of aforesaid witnesses and the material documents, ultimately came to conclusion that all the charges were proved. In coming to aforesaid conclusion, the evidence of JAO, PW1, and the consumer, PW2, were given much weight who have spoken supporting the issuance of book consisting of 500 receipts and one of the missing leafs was issued to the consumer, PW2, upon collecting the amount of Rs.12,331/- and that the said amount was never accounted by the petitioner. 11. Therefore, it was concluded that firstly, the petitioner did not immediately bring to the notice of the higher authorities regarding the missing of 20 leafs, had they were really missing at the very first instance and secondly that one of the missing leafs since was issued to the consumer upon collecting the amounts, who clearly spoke that the same was paid to the petitioner, it was held the amount has been misappropriated. Basing on the said report and after considering the explanation of the petitioner, the disciplinary authority by order dated 20.03.2004 ultimately concluded that the charges were proved and as the same were 9 serious in nature, it warranted severe punishment of dismissal from service. Further in the appeal, the appellate authority, while confirming the findings recorded by the disciplinary authority, by taking a lenient view had modified the punishment to that of compulsory retirement. Since the enquiry report clearly suggests that petitioner was provided with due opportunity to both cross- examine the prosecution witnesses as well to lead his own evidence and was also given multiple opportunities, it cannot be said that he was not given due opportunity or that the same amounted to violation of principles of natural justice. The finding arrived at by the disciplinary authority and as confirmed by the appellate authority, based on the enquiry report, cannot be said to be in any way erroneous or perverse unless it is shown that the findings arrived at was without any basis or without evidence nor based on certain extraneous reasons. 12. Normally, this Court, while exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, would not interfere with such concurrent findings of fact unless the same are shown to be shockingly perverse. It is thus well settled that the constitutional courts while exercising their powers of judicial review would not assume the role of an appellate authority. Their jurisdiction is 10 circumscribed by limits of correcting errors of law, procedural errors leading to manifest injustice or violation of principles of natural justice. Put differently, judicial review is not analogous to venturing into the merits of a case like an appellate authority. Therefore, this Court does not find any reason to interfere with the orders passed by the 1st respondent confirming the order of the 2nd respondent. Accordingly, the Writ Petition stands dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel thereto, interlocutory applications pending, if any, shall also stand closed. ______________________________ JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN Date: 06.11.2025 ANS 11 300 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN WRIT PETITION NO: 17394/2004 Date: 06.11.2025 ANS