\ » IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAV (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE THIRTIETH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE ^ PRESENT THE HON’BLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA WRIT PETITION NO: 21111 OF 2019 Between: Chilli Rama Rao, S/o. Chandra Rao, Aged about 56 years, Occ:- Lineman, R/o. H.No.3-124, SC Peta, Burugupudi, Korukonda Mandal, East Godavari District. ...PETITIONER AND 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Power and Energy Department, A.P. Secretariat Buildings, Velagapudi, Amaravathi, Guntur District. . 2. The Chairman and Managing Director, APEPDCL, Corporate Office, P7T Colony, Seethammadhara, Visakhapatnam-530 103. Superintending Engineer (Operations), APEPDCL, Rajamahendravaram, East Godavari District. 4. The Divisional Electrical Engineer (Operations), APEPDCL, Rajamahendravaram, East Godavari District. 3. The ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a Writ, order or direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 4th respondent in Memo impugned DEE/0/RCPM/JAO/ADM/SA.2/DNO,1/17413/16 dated 02.05.2016 and terminating the services of the petitioner with retrospective effect i.e., from issuing vide No. m 02.12.2011 without following the procedure as laid down in APSEB Rules and Regulations and without supplying the enquiry report to the petitioner though the petitioner filed representations/appeals from 27.07.2016 and 20.09.2018 to 2nd respondent and not taking any action to dispose of the representations/appeals filed by the petitioner to consider is case to re- instate him into service as Lineman without foiiowing the ruies, reguiations and procedure of APSEB is highiy jifegai, arbitrary and vioiative 16, 19, 21 and 311 of the Constitution of India made APEPDCL Rules without of Article 14, and contrary to the provisions serving the enquiry officer report hence the impugned termination order issued by the 4th aside and consequently direct the 2nd the petitioner by setting aside the i dated 02.05.2016 duly directing to respondent is liable to be set- respondent to consider the appeal of impugned order of the 4th respondent reinstate the petition into service as Lineman. lA NO: 1 OF 201Q Petition under Section 151 CPC stated in the affidavit filed i pleased to praying that in the circumstances in support of the petition, the High Court may be direct the respondents the impugned SE/0/RJY/EE.T/PO/JAO/ADM/SA.2/DNO.116, respondent and termination order memo no. dated 15.11.2019 of 3^'^ passed by the 4*'' respondent vide impugned memo DEE/0/RCPM/JA0/ADM/SA.2/DN0.1/17413/16 dated 02.05.2016. - Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI K SATYANARAYANA Counsel for the Respondent No.1 Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 2 to 4: The Court made the following: ORDER MURTHY GP FOR ENERGY V V SATISH (SC for APEPDCL) 1 APHC010438172019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3396] WEDNESDAY, THE THIRTIETH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA WRIT PETITION NO: 21111/2019 Between: Chilli Rama Rao, ...PETITIONER AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. K SATYANARAYANA MURTHY Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. VV SATISH (SC for APEPDCL) The Court made the following: ORDER: ...RESPONDENT(S) This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India the following prayer; with ® order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the 4^ respondent in issuing impugned Memo vide No.DEE/0/RCPM/JAO/ADM/SA.2/DN0.1/17413/16 dated 0Z05.2016 and terminating the services of the petitioner with retrospective without following the procedure as laid down in Rules and Regulations and without supplying the enquiry report to the petitioner though the petitioner filed representations/appeals from 27.07.2016 and 20.09.2018 to 2" respondent and not taking any action to dispose of the representations/appeals filed by the petitioner to consider his case to re-instate 2 him into service as Lineman without foiiowing the ruies, reguiations and procedure of APSEB is highiy iiiegai, arbitrary and vioiative of Articie 14, 16, 19, 21 and 311 of the Constitution of india and contrary to the provisions made APEPDCL Ruies without serving the enquiry officer report hence the impugned termination order issued by the 4^ respondent is iiabie to be set-aside and consequentiy direct the 2'’^' respondent to consider the appeai of the petitioner by setting aside the impugned order of the 4^ respondent dated 02.05.2016 duty directing to reinstate the petitioner into service as Lineman and pass such other order or orders ” \ 2. Heard Sri K.Satyanarayana Murthy, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri V.V.Satish, learned Standing Counsel for APEPDCL, appearing for the respondents 2 to 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner removed from service on the allegation that he is unauthorizedly absent from duty for one year three months. The petitioner worked as Lineman. The petitioner was suffering from serious ill-health to the extent of mental imbalance, that is why he could not attend his duties. Learned counsel would further submit that without furnishing the enquiry report, the punishment imposed on the petitioner. Learned counsel finally would submit that at the time of filing the present petition, the petitioner was 56 years old. So, the Court may pass appropriate orders atleast giving him liberty to make a representation before the respondent authorities to consider his voluntary retirement or compulsory retirement, so that he may get some retiral benefits. 3. was was case as 4. Learned Standing Counsel for respondents 2 to 4 would submit that the Court may pass appropriate orders. A - 3 Considering the submissions made and a keen perusal of the material record, without going into the merits of the case on the impugned order of removal, in the light of the submissions made that because of the matrimonial and family quarrels, the individual suffered from health issues went to extent of loosing mental balance, it is apposite to dispose of the present writ petition giving liberty to the petitioner to submit a representation to the respondent No.2 and respondent No.2 shall consider his representation and take appropriate decision according to governing rules and law, keeping in mind the health condition of the petitioner, within a period of two (02) months from the date of receipt of such representation. 5. on issues an With the above observation, the Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order^gs to As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand 6. closed. Sd/- K. TATA RAO deputy registrar //TRUE COPY// FFICER SECTl' To, The Principal Secretary, Power and Energy Department, A.P. Secretariat Buildings, Velagapudi, Amaravathi, Guntur District. The Chairman and Managing Director, APEPDCL, Corporate Office, P7T Colony, Seethammadhara, Visakhapatnam-530 103. The Superintending Engineer (Operations), APEPDCL, Rajamahendravaram, East Godavari District. The Divisional Electrical Engineer (Operations), APEPDCL, Rajamahendravaram, East Godavari District. One CC to Sri K Satyanarayana Murthy, Advocate [OPUC] One CC to Sri V V Satish (SC for APEPDCL) Advocate [OPUC] Two CCs to GP for Energy, High Court of Andhra Pradesh. [OUT] 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. HIGH COURT DATED:30/04/2025 ORDER WP.No.21111 of 2019 I IS SEP 2025 _ ^ . Current beciion . m DISPOSING OF THE W.P., WITHOUT COSTS