5 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA WRIT PETITION NO: 29574 OF 2018 Between: G.Satyanarayana, S/oSuranna, aged 53 years, Occu. Lineman, APEPDCL (removed from service) R/o Tatapudi (V), Kapilashwaram(M), East Godavari District, A.P ...Petitioner AND 1. Eastern Power Distribution Company of A.P Ltd., Rep. by its Chairman and Managing Director, Corporate Office, P and T Colony Seetammadhara, Visakhapatnam -530013 2. The Superintending Engineer/ Operation/, Rajamahendravaram, Eastern Power Distribution Company of A.P Ltd., Rajahmundry, East Godavari District, A.P 3. The Divisional Electrical Engineer/ Operation/, APEPDCL, Jaggampeta, East Godavari District ...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 an appropriate Writ, Order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of i) the Board of the 1st respondent in rejecting the proposal to admit the petitioner in to service vide Memo No. HRD/IR/E - 84697 - File No. EPCOR - 06003 (10)/ 7/ 2016 -IR T -1- COR/1. No. 155562 /18 dated 28.03.2018 ii) Charge Memo No. DE/ 0/ JGPT/ ADM/ JAO,/ U1/ D.No.1577/13 dated 08.08.2013 and Memo No. DEE/ 0/ JGPT/ JAO/Adm/SA-1/ D.No.644/18 dated 25.04.2018 removing the petitioner from service of the 3rd respondent having already imposed the punishment of stoppage of three increments with cumulative effect on the same charge vide Memo No. DEE/ 0/ JGPT/ ADM/ JAO,/ U1 ./ D.No.2503/10 dated 05.10.2010 is illegal, arbitrary and contrary to Discipline and Appeal Regulations of EPDCL consequently direct the respondents to reinstate the petitioner in to service with all consequential benefits of increments and arrears of pay w.e.f 05.10.2010. lA NO: 1 OF 2018 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the respondents to continue the petitioner in service as Lineman as he was already reinstated in to service vide Memo. No. DE/JGPT/ JAO/ Adm/SA-1/ D.No.420/18 dated 20.03.2018. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI. K V PAVAN KUMAR Counsel for the Respondents: SRI V V SATISH SC FOR APEPDCL The Court made the following order: 1 APHC010617792018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3396] MONDAY, THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA WRIT PETITION NO: 29574/2018 Between; ...PETITIONER G.satyanarayana AND ...RESPONDENT(S) Eastern Power Distribution Company Of A P Ltd and Others Counsel for the Petitioner: 1.K VPAVAN KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. VV SATISH (SC for APEPDCL) 2.16294 The Court made the following: ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India with the following prayer: “ to issue a writ or order or direction more particuiariy one in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS, declaring the action of i) the Board of the 1 respondent in rejecting the proposal to admit the petitioner in to service vide Memo No. HRD/IR/E - 84697 - File No. EPCOR - 06003 (10)/ 7/2016 -IR T-1- COR/I. No. 155562/18 dated 28.03.2018 ii) Charge Memo No. DE/0/JGPT/ St 2 ADM/ JAOy U1/ D.No.1577/13 dated 08.08.2013 and Memo No.DEE/ 0/ JGPT/ JAO/Adm/SA-1/ D.No.644/18 dated 25.04.2018 removing the petitioner from service of the 3^^ respondent having aiready imposed the punishment of stoppage of three increments with cumuiative effect on the same charge vide Memo No. DEE/0/ JGPT/ADM/ JAO,/ U1 ./D.No.2503/10 dated 05.10.2010 is iilegai, arbitrary and contrary to Discipline and Appeal Regulations of EPDCL consequently direct the respondents to reinstate the petitioner in to service with all consequential benefits of increments and arrears of pay w.e.f 05.10.2010 and pass such other order or orders ” Heard Sri K.V.Pavan Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri 2. V.V.Satish, learned Standing Counsel for APEPDCL. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner 3. worked as lineman in respondent-Corporation. Because of his serious ill- health, he could not appear for the job for considerable length of time. The petitioner was imposed with a punishment of stoppage of three increments with cumulative effect and thereafter he was removed from service. The individual suffered from mental imbalance also. The enquiry conducted for twelve years. On 23.03.2018, the individual was reinstated into service, but immediately within five days, he was removed. Learned counsel would submit that atleast the punishment of dismissal may be considered as voluntary retirement, so that, the petition would get anything as retirement benefits. Learned Standing Counsel at para No.16 of the counter, would submit 4. that the petitioner could not attend the work for a period of ten years. Basing on the humanitarian grounds, the respondent-Corporation has reinstated him into service. But immediately thereafter, they have received instructions from 3 the Head Office to remove him from service since it is not permissible. As such, he was removed from service vide Memo dated 25.04.2018. At this juncture, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that a fair opportunity may be given to the petitioner to make such representation to 5. the respondent-corporation and a direction may be given to the respondent authorities to consider his representation to treat his punishment i.e. dismissal as voluntary retirement. Learned Standing Counsel would submit that Court may pass 6. appropriate orders. Considering the submissions made and a fair look at the material placed on record, there is no dispute about the fact that the petitioner worked as a lineman and it is also not in dispute that he could not work for 7. considerable length of period. Of course, he was awarded with punishment of stoppage of three increments with cumulative effect, but thereafter he was dismissed from service. The fact remains that the petitioner was suffering from serious ill-health including the mental imbalance. Such being the case considering the facts and circumstances, it is apposite to dispose of the present writ petition giving liberty to the petitioner to submit a representation to the respondent authorities to consider the punishment of dismissal as voluntary retirement and on receipt of such representation, the respondent authorities are directed to consider it and take appropriate decision according . \{ ^ . 4 to governing rules and law, within receipt of such representation. a period of two (02) months from the date of 8. With the above observation, the Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. Sd/- P.VINOD KUMAR ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, 1. The Chairman and Managing Director, Eastern Power Distribution Compahy of A.P Ltd., Corporate Office, PandT Colony Seetammadhara, Visakhapatnam -530013 2. The Superintending Engineer/ Operation/, Rajamahendravaram, Eastern Power Distribution Company of A.P Ltd., Rajahmundry, East Godavari District, A.P 3. The Divisional Electrical Engineer/ Operation/, APEPDCL, Jaggampeta East Godavari District 4. One CC to Sri. K V Pavan Kumar Advocate [OPUC] 5. One CC to Sri. V V Satish SC for APEPDCL [OPUC] 6. Three CD Copies GSC ' 0 HIGH COURT DATED:28/04/2025 ORDER WP.No.29574 of 2018 5 MS^m a . Current Section . ^fSPATCWfe^ DISPOSING THE WP WITHOUT COSTS