P a g e | 1 Date of reserved for orders : 02.09.2026 Date of pronouncement : 19.09.2026 Date of uploading : 21.09.2026 APHC010435642024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) SATURDAY, THE 19th DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE BALAJI MEDAMALLI WRIT PETITION NO: 24604 OF 2024 Between: 1. C. MAHESH, S/o. C.Subramanyam, Aged about 36 Years, Presently working as Junior Engineer OSD DUTY, R/o. kotanka (V), Garladinne (M), Anantapur(D)-515731 ...Petitioner AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, Rep by its Principal Secretary, Department of Energy, Secretariat Buildings, Velagapudi Amaravati, Guntur District. 2. The Andhra Pradesh Southern Power Distribution Company Limited, Corporate Office, D.No. 19-13-65/A, Srinivasapuram, Triruchanoor Road, Tirupathi, Chittoor District, Rep. by its Chairman and Managing Director. 3. The Andhra Pradesh Southern Power Distribution Company Limited, Corporate Office, D.No.19-13-65/A, Srinivasapuram, Tiruchanoor Road, Tirupathi, Chittoor District, Rep. by its Chief General Manager (HRD). 4. The Superintending Engineer Operations, APSPDCL, Anantapuram, Anantapuram District. P a g e | 2 5. The Executive Engineer Operations DUTY, APSPDCL, Gooty. 6. The Executive Engineer Enquiries, APSPDCL, Tirupathi. 7. The Joint Managing Director Vigilance and Security, APSPDCL, Tirupathi. 8. The Chief Vigilance Officer, APSPDCL, Tirupathi, 9. The Superintendent of Police, APSPDCL, Tirupathi ...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 or order or direction more particularly in the nature of Writ of Certiorari calling for the records of the Memo no. SE/O/ATP/EE-T/PO/JAO/Adm./SI/d.no.372/24, Dt.07.05.2024 (received by the Petitioner on 30.05.2024) passed by Respondent No.4 thereby awarding punishment of postponement of 3 increments with cumulative effect besides treating the suspension period from 17.07.2021 to 26.04.2022 as leave to which he is eligible to the Petitioner and quash the same and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2024 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 may be pleased to dispense with of not filing the certified/original copy of Memo no. SE/0/ATP/EE-T/PO/JAO/Adm./S1/d.no.372/24, Dt.07.05.2024 and it will be filed as and when it will be available and Xerox copy of Memo no. SE/O/ATP/EE- T/PO/JAO/Adm./S1/d.no.372/24, Dt.07.05.2024 is filing here with and pass IA NO: 2 OF 2024 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 may be pleased to direct the Respondents herein, more particularly P a g e | 3 Respondent No.2 to 4 not to effect the punishment of postponement of 3 increments with cumulative effect besides treating the suspension period from 17.07.2021 to 26.04.2022 as leave to which he is eligible by suspending the Memo No.SE/0/ATP/EE-T/PO/JAO/Adm./S1/d.no.372/24, dated 07.05.2024 passed by the 4th Respondent as against the Petitioner herein and pass IA NO: 3 OF 2024 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 herein particularly Respondent No.3 to 6 to supply the copies of Exhibits E-01 to E-234 which are the Chief and Cross Examinations of the Witnesses and other evidence recorded during Oral Enquiry, which are enclosed to the Enquiry Report and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2026 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 May be pleased to grant leave for filing the counter affidavit on behalf of Petitioners/Respondents No.2 to 6 and 8 in W.P.No.24604 of 2024, and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: PULIPATI RADHIKA Counsel for the Respondents: VENKATA RAMA RAO KOTA SC FOR APSPDCL Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR SERVICES I The Court made the following ORDER: P a g e | 4 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE BALAJI MEDAMALLI WRIT PETITION NO: 24604/2024 ORDER: 1. The Writ Petition is filed seeking the following relief: “may be pleased to issue an appropriate Writ or order or direction more particularly in the nature of Writ of Certiorari calling for the records of the Memo No.SE/O/ATP/EE- T/PO/JAO/Adm./S1/d.no.372/24, Dt. 07.05.2024 (received by the Petitioner on 30.05.2024) passed by Respondent No.4 thereby awarding punishment of postponement of 3 increments with cumulative effect besides treating the suspension period from 17.07.2021 to 26.04.2022 as leave to which he is eligible to the Petitioner and quash the same and pass” 2. Brief averments of the case facts are as follows: (i) Petitioner was appointed as Junior Engineer in the 2nd respondent-Corporation on 14.02.2011 and is presently working in the Operation Sub-Division, APSPDCL, Gooty. A complaint was received by the Vigilance authorities alleging that the petitioner and others were indulging in corrupt practices by collecting amounts from consumers in connection with erection, shifting and replacement of transformers. Based on the said complaint, the Vigilance Wing conducted an enquiry and submitted a report alleging that the petitioner, in collusion with a Labour Contractor, had collected amounts ranging from Rs.5,000/- to Rs.40,000/- from farmers. Based on the Vigilance Report, disciplinary action was initiated against the petitioner and he was placed under suspension vide Memo dated 15.07.2021, without issuing any Show- Cause Notice. The petitioner submitted his explanation denying the P a g e | 5 allegations and contending that there was no evidence of his having demanded or accepted any bribe. Without considering the same, the 3rd respondent issued Show Cause Notice dated 20.07.2021, for which the petitioner submitted explanation on 11.08.2021. Thereafter, the 3rd respondent appointed 6th respondent as Enquiry Officer vide Memo dated 28.09.2021 to enquire into allegations. Thereafter, disciplinary proceedings were initiated and a charge sheet was issued vide Memo dated 05.10.2021. Subsequently, the earlier charge sheet and appointment of Enquiry Officer were cancelled vide Memo dated 23.11.2021 and a revised charge sheet was issued vide Memo dated 31.12.2021, to which petitioner submitted his detailed reply dated 12.01.2022 requesting to supply copies of defence written statements and depositions of other charged officers. Without considering the same, 6th respondent issued Memo dated 17.02.2022 directing the petitioner and other delinquents to participate in oral enquiry on 04.03.2022. However, 4th respondent, pending finalization of disciplinary action against the petitioner, issued Memo dated 23.04.2022, reinstating the petitioner into service. (ii) According to the petitioner, complainant and the farmers whose statements allegedly formed the basis of the Vigilance Report did not support the allegations in the enquiry. Petitioner received the copy of Enquiry Report dated 28.10.2022 on 15.02.2023. Petitioner repeatedly requested for the complete Enquiry Report along with its P a g e | 6 enclosures and all the material relied upon by the department. However, 4th respondent issued Show Cause Notice dated 17.06.2023 proposing punishment. Petitioner again requested for the relevant documents and submitted that, without the same, he could not effectively submit his explanation. Disciplinary authority, however, declined to furnish the documents sought by the petitioner. While petitioner's request was pending, 4th respondent issued the impugned Memo dated 07.05.2024, imposing the punishment of “postponement of 3 increments with cumulative effect besides treating the suspension period from 17.07.2021 to 26.04.2022 as leave which is eligible”. Aggrieved thereby, petitioner has filed the present Writ Petition. 3. Respondents, while denying the allegations of the petitioner, contend that the disciplinary action was initiated pursuant to the Vigilance enquiry, in which it was found that the petitioner, while working as Junior Engineer, had collected illegal gratification from farmers in connection with replacement and installation of Distribution Transformers. The allegations were substantiated not only in the Vigilance enquiry, but also in the subsequent departmental enquiry, wherein the charges against the petitioner were held proved. It is further contended that petitioner was placed under suspension on 15.07.2021 in exercise of the powers under the applicable APSEB Discipline and Appeal Regulations and was thereafter issued a Show Cause notice dated 20.07.2021, to which he submitted his explanation. Respondents state that a departmental enquiry was conducted in accordance with the prescribed P a g e | 7 procedure and, after the petitioner was reinstated into service on 27.04.2022, enquiry report was furnished to him. The respondents’ disputed petitioner's contention that the enquiry report and relied-upon material were not furnished. According to them, enquiry report contained the statements of the witnesses relevant to the charges and the documents sought by the petitioner as Exhibits E-01 to E-234 constituted official correspondence, most of which were not related to him. Petitioner, despite being given repeated opportunities and reminders, did not submit his explanation to the show-cause notice proposing punishment. Consequently, the final orders dated 07.05.2024 were issued imposing the punishment of “postponement of 3 increments with cumulative effect besides treating the suspension period as leave to which he is eligible”. It is further contended that the petitioner was informed of his right of appeal under Regulation 18 of the APSEB Discipline and Appeal Regulations, but he did not avail the said alternative remedy and instead approached this Court and prayed to dismiss the Writ Petition. 4. Heard Ms.Pulipati Vandana, learned counsel appearing Ms.Pulipati Radhika, learned counsel for petitioner, and Mr.Venkata Rama Rao Kota, learned Standing Counsel for APSPDCL, appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 9. 5. The principal contention of the learned counsel for petitioner is that, after issuance of charge memo dated 05.10.2021, petitioner submitted several representations on 06.11.2021, 12.11.2021 and 15.11.2021 seeking a copy of vigilance report, which is the basis for issuing charge memo, and on P a g e | 8 25.10.2021, he had submitted a detailed explanation to the Enquiry Officer, wherein he asked for the vigilance report for submitting a detailed explanation. However, the said charge memo and the proceedings appointing the Enquiry Officer were withdrawn. Thereafter, the Chief General Manager issued a revised charge memo on 31.12.2021 along with the Articles of Charge under Annexure-I, list of documents relied upon under Annexure-II and list of witnesses under Annexure-III. Petitioner submitted a representation on 12.01.2022 seeking to drop the charges pending against him. Thereafter, an enquiry was held pursuant to the proceedings dated 17.02.2022, petitioner along with other delinquent employees have attended the enquiry conducted on 04.03.2022. Enquiry report was communicated to the petitioner vide Memo No.SE/I/ATP/EE-T/JAO/Adm./S1/D.No.4337/2022, dated 09.02.2023, along with a copy of the vigilance report. Oral enquiry reveals that about 19 witnesses cited, 7 witnesses were not examined, due to absence of 6 witnesses and due to death of Sri M.Habeen Basha. Depositions and cross- examinations recorded during oral enquiry were also enclosed to the enquiry report. As seen from the enquiry report, only few witnesses in relation to the petitioner were relevant i.e., Sri Butra Bayanna, Sri B.Sadasiva, S/o. Butra Bayanna, Sri Rayapati Nagabushanam, Sri B. Chandrababu Naidu, Sri G.Ramachadra, Sri C. Mahesh. 6. After receipt of enquiry report, on 27.05.2023, petitioner submitted a letter to the Executive Engineer stating that he had received partial departmental enquiry without enclosures and requested to furnish Exs.E-02 to P a g e | 9 E-234, pursuant to which vide proceedings dated 01.06.2023, the Executive Engineer addressed a letter to the Superintending Engineer, requesting the Superintending Engineer, Operation, Anantapuram, to arrange to provide the enquiry report and documents at an early date. Thereafter, on 17.06.2023, a Show Cause Notice was issued to the petitioner asking him to submit his explanation proposing the punishment of “Stoppage of 3 (three) increments with cumulative effect” and asking to submit his explanation within 15 days from the date of receipt of the said notice. Pursuant to which, petitioner had submitted his explanation dated 05.08.2023 seeking extension of time for submission of his reply stating that, as per Regulation 10(2)(c), a person charged shall be entitled to be supplied with copy of the enquiry report and to provide reasonable opportunity for making representation and reiterating that Exs.E-02 to E-234 are not furnished and made a request to furnish at an earliest date. On 20.11.2023, the Chief General Manager, HRD, issued proceedings addressing to the petitioner stating that Exs.E-02 to E-234 are the official correspondence of Enquiry Officer and most of them are not related to him and the statements of witnesses related to him are shown to him and are detailed in enquiry report. A copy of the same was already furnished to him as per Regulation 10(2)(c) of APSEB Employees Discipline and Appeal Regulations adopted by APSPDCL. Hence, there is no need of furnishing copies of Exs.E-01 to E-234 and further informed that the enquiry report contains all the information sought by the petitioner through his report dated 05.09.2023. P a g e | 10 7. On 05.02.2024, the Superintending Engineer addressed a letter to the Executive Engineer to serve Memo dated 17.06.2023 to the petitioner and obtain acknowledgment in token of receipt of the said memo, pursuant to which, Memo dated 17.06.2023 was once again served on the petitioner on 14.02.2024 and obtained acknowledgment. Thereafter, on 17.02.2024, petitioner once again submitted a representation requesting to furnish Exs.E-01 to E-234 for verification and for submitting explanation. On 10.02.2024, petitioner was served with another memo reminding to submit his reply to the Show Cause Notice within ten (10) days. On 18.04.2024 again issued a reminder to submit his reply to the Show Cause Notice dated 17.06.2023. Pursuant to which, on 03.05.2024, petitioner addressed a letter to the Chairman and Managing Director, reiterating his request for furnishing Exs.E-01 to E-234 for verification and for submission of explanation. 8. As no explanation is received from the petitioner and the disciplinary authority, after going through the enquiry report, confirmed the proposed punishment of postponement of three (3) increments with cumulative effect and treating the period under suspension as leave. Basing on the same, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that in spite of repeated requests, the respondent authorities have not furnished the Exs.E-01 to E-234 and have not furnished the vigilance report, which forms basis for initiating disciplinary proceedings and issuance of charge memo. As such, the entire proceedings are vitiated. P a g e | 11 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner places reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Kashinath Dikshita vs. Union of India and others1, for the proposition that delinquent facing disciplinary proceeding is entitled to be afforded a reasonable opportunity to meet the charges against him in an effective manner and no one facing departmental enquiry can effectively meet the charges unless the copies of relevant statements and documents to be used against him are made available. In absence of such copies, he cannot prepare his defence and cross-examine the witnesses. The Hon’ble Apex Court, at paragraphs 10 and 13, held as follows: “10. This application was unceremoneously rejected by the Board on December 20, 1963 Please refer to your application No. KND/BI-2, dated December 3, 1963 regarding copies of documents and statement cited in evidence. The Board of Inquiry regrets that it is not possible for them to acceds to your request since you have already been allowed by Government an access to the relevant official records for the purpose of preparing your written statement as provided under Sub-rule (4) of Rule 5 of the All India Service (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1955. It is thus clear that the appellant's request for supply of copies of relevant documents and statements of witnesses has been refused in no unclear terms We do not consider it necessary to burden the records by quoting the extracts from the letters addressed by the appellant and the reply sent to him. The extracts quoted hereinabove leave no room for doubt that the disciplinary authority refused to furnish to the appellant copies of documents and copies of statements. When a Government servant is facing a disciplinary proceeding, he is entitled to be afforded a reasonable opportunity-to meet the charges against him in an effective manner. And no one facing a departmental enquiry can effectively meet the charges unless the copies of the relevant statements and documents to be used against him are made available to him. In the absence of such copies, how can the concerned employee prepare his defence, cross examine the witness, and point out the inconsistencies with a view to show that the allegations are incredible? ….. 1 (1986) 3 SCC 229 P a g e | 12 13. The appellant relied on Tirlok Nath v. Union of India 1967 SLR 759 in support of the proposition that if a public servant facing an inquiry is not supplied copies of documents, it would amount to denial of reasonable opportunity. It has been held in this case: “Had he decided to do so, the documents would have been useful to the appellant for cross-examining the witnesses who deposed against him Again had the copies of the documents been furnished to the appellant he might, after perusing them, will have exercised his right under the rule and asked for an oral inquiry to be held. Therefore, in our view the failure of the Inquiry Officer to furnish to the appellant with copies of the documents such as the FIR and statements recorded at Shidhipura house and during the investigation must be held to have caused prejudice to the appellant in making his defence at the inquiry.” Reliance has also been placed on State of Punjab v. Bhagat Ram and State of Uttar Pradesh v. Mohd. Sharif (dead) in support of the proposition that copies of statements of witnesses must be supplied to the Government servant facing a departmental inquiry. It has been emphatically stated in State of Punjab v. Bhagat Ram by this Court as under: “The State contended that the respondent was not entitled to get copies of statements. The reasoning of the State was that the respondent was given an opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses and during the cross- examination the respondent would have the opportunity of confronting the witnesses with the statements. It is contended that the synopsis was adequate to acquaint the respondent with the gist of the evidence.” The meaning of a reasonable opportunity of showing cause against the action proposed to be taken is that the Government servant is afforded a reasonable opportunity to defend himself against the charges on which inquiry is held. The Government servant should be given an opportunity to deny his guilt and establish his innocence. He can do so when he is told what the charges against him are. He can do so by cross-examining the witnesses produced against him. The object of supplying statements is that the Government servant will be able to refer to the previous statements of the witnesses proposed to be examined against the Government servant. Unless the statements are given to the Government servant he will not be able to have an effective and useful cross-examination. It is unjust and unfair to deny the Government servant copies of witnesses examined during investigation and produced at the inquiry P a g e | 13 in support of the charges levelled against the Government servant. A synopsis does not satisfy the requirements of giving the Government servant a reasonable opportunity of showing cause against the action proposed to be taken ....” 10. Learned counsel for the petitioner, placing reliance on the above, would submit that the petitioner is entitled for supply of copies of documents for cross-examining the witnesses deposed against him to establish his innocence. The object of supply of statements to the delinquent is to enable him to refer to the previous statements of witnesses proposed to be examined against him. It is unfair to deny the delinquent copies of witnesses during investigation and production at the enquiry in support of charges levelled against government servants. A synopsis of the same does not satisfy the requirement of giving government servant reasonable opportunity of showing cause against him. 11. In the case on hand, petitioner sought for supply of Exs.E-01 to E-234, however the same was not considered, and only furnished the enquiry report, which reveals the gist of the depositions, as such, the same is not sufficient for submitting effective reply to the charges levelled against the petitioner. As such, the enquiry is vitiated for non-compliance with the procedure contemplated under the rules. Learned counsel for the petitioner requested to set aside the enquiry report and exonerate the petitioner. 12. On contra, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents submits that all the evidence under Exs.E-01 to E-234 are not the basis for taking impugned action against the petitioner. Those statements are regarding other P a g e | 14 employees, only the witnesses, who have deposed against the petitioner, were already furnished to him and those witnesses were already examined and cross-examined by the petitioner during the oral enquiry. In spite of the same, only to avoid submitting explanation thereby to avoid the disciplinary proceedings, petitioner had resorted to delay tactics and in spite of repeated clarifications given, he has been asking for the very same documents. It is settled law that a preliminary enquiry report cannot be the basis for imposing punishment. The preliminary enquiry report is a mere report for the purpose of framing charges against the delinquent that cannot be the basis for imposing punishment, as such non-supply of preliminary report will not vitiate the proceedings. The preliminary enquiry report is only for the purpose of prima facie ascertaining the availability of material to proceed against the employee by the employer. The oral enquiry that was conducted after issuance of charge memo is only the basis for imposing the penalty, as such, petitioner has no right to seek the preliminary enquiry report for submitting his explanation as the same did not form part of the enquiry report. Enquiry was conducted independently and the witnesses were examined. 13. Learned Standing Counsel for the respondents further submits that 19 witnesses were cited in the enquiry, only 12 witnesses were examined for the reasons mentioned above. Out of the said 12 witnesses, the statements of the persons, who spoke against the petitioner, were furnished to him along with the enquiry report. Initially, the petitioner asked for the statements made before the vigilance officials. However, during the enquiry, petitioner has P a g e | 15 neither raised the said issue and the enquiry report says that the depositions and the cross-examinations were also enclosed along with the enquiry report. Except asking for Exs.E-01 to E-234, petitioner had not detailed what are the documents that were supplied to him and what are the documents to be supplied. This contention of the petitioner clearly discloses that the petitioner is only for the purpose of dragging the enquiry further to avoid punishment and went on filing requests for supply of papers. 14. Learned Standing Counsel for respondents further submits that a detailed enquiry was conducted and thereafter, the delinquent was asked to furnish his explanation on the findings of the enquiry report in spite of repeated reminders as stated above. The delinquent had not furnished his comments/explanation on the enquiry report and the disciplinary authority, after considering the enquiry report, had arrived at the proposed punishment as adequate and accordingly imposed with the punishment as stated above. As such, there is no illegality or irregularity in imposing the punishment. 15. Learned Standing Counsel for the respondents places reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in State Bank of Patiala and others vs. S.K. Sharma2, wherein, at paragraph 33, the Hon’ble Apex Court held as follows: “33. We may summarise the principles emerging from the above discussion.(These are by no means intended to be exhaustive and are evolved keeping in view the context of disciplinary enquiries and orders of punishment imposed by an employer upon the employee): 2 (1996) 3 SCC 364 P a g e | 16 (1) An order passed imposing a punishment on an employee consequent upon a disciplinary/departmental enquiry in violation of the rules/regulations/statutory provisions governing such enquiries should not be set aside automatically. The Court or the Tribunal should enquire whether (a) the provision violated is of a substantive nature or (b) whether it is procedural in character. (2) A substantive provision has normally to be complied with as explained hereinbefore and the theory of substantial compliance or the test of prejudice would not be applicable in such a case. (3) In the case of violation of a procedural provision, the position is this: procedural provisions are generally meant for affording a reasonable and adequate opportunity to the delinquent officer/employee. They are, generally speaking, conceived in his interest. Violation of any and every procedural provision cannot be said to automatically vitiate the enquiry held or order passed. Except cases falling under 'no notice', 'no opportunity' and 'no hearing' categories, the complaint of violation of procedural provision should be examined from the point of view of prejudice, viz., whether such violation has prejudiced the delinquent officer/employee in defending himself properly and effectively. If it is found that he has been so prejudiced, appropriate orders have to be made to repair and remedy the prejudicate, including setting aside the enquiry and/or the order of punishment. If no prejudice is established to have resulted therefrom, it is obvious, no interference is called for. In this connection, it may be remembered that there may be certain procedural provisions which are of a fundamental character, whose violation is by itself proof of The Court may not insist on proof of prejudice in such cases. As explained in the body of the judgment, take a case where there is a provision g expressly providing that after the evidence of the employer/government is over, the employee shall be given an opportunity to lead defence in his evidence, and in a given case, the enquiry officer does not give that opportunity inspite of the delinquent officer/employee asking for it. The prejudice is self-evident. No proof of prejudice as such need be called for in such a case. To repeat, the test is one of prejudice, i.e., whether the person has received a fair hearing considering all things. Now, this very aspect can also be looked at from the point of view of directory and mandatory provisions, if one is so inclined. The principle stated under (4) hereinbelow is only another way of looking at the same aspect as is dealt with herein and not a different or distinct principle. (4)(a) In the case of a procedural provision which is not of a mandatory characters the complaint of violation has to be examined from the standpoint of substantial compliance. Be that as it mays the order passed in violation of such a provision can be set aside only P a g e | 17 where such violation has occasioned prejudice to the delinquent employee. (b) In the case of violation of a procedural provisional which is of a mandatory character, it has to be ascertained whether the provision is conceived in the interest of the person proceeded against or in public interest. If it is found to be the former, then it must be seen whether the delinquent officer has waived the said requirements either expressly or by his conduct. If he is found to have waived its then the order of punishment cannot be set aside on theground of said violation. If, on the other hand, it is found that the delinquent officer/employee has not it or that the provision could no be waived by him, then the Court or Tribunal should make appropriate directions [include the setting aside of the order of punishment], keeping in mind the approach adopted by the Constitution Bench in B.Karunkar. The ultimate test is always the same viz., test of prejudice or the test of fair hearing, as it may be called. (5) Where the enquiry is not governed by any rules/regulations/statutory provisions and the only obligation is to observe the principles of natural justice - or, for that matter, wherever such principles are held to be implied by the very nature and impact of the order/action the Court or the Tribunal should make a distinction between a total violation of natural justice [rule of audi alteram] and violation of a facet of the said rule, as explained in the body of the judgment. In other words, a distinction must be made between no opportunity" and no adequate opportunity, i.e., between "no notice"/"no hearing" "no fair hearing". (a) In the case of former, the order passed would undoubtedly be invalid [one may call it "void" or a nullity if one chooses to]. In such cases, normally, liberty will be reserved for the Authority to take proceedings afresh according to law, i.e., in accordance with the said rule [audi alteram partem ]. (b) But in the latter case, the effect of violation [of a facet of the rule of audi alteram] has to be examined from the standpoint of prejudice; in other word in other words, what the Court or Tribunal has to see is whether in the totality of the circumstances, the delinquent officer/employee did or did not have a fair hearing and the orders to be made shall depend upon the answer to the said query. [It is made clear that this principle [No.5] does not apply in the case of rule against bias, the test in which behalf are laid down elsewhere.] (6) While applying the rule of audi alteram partem [the primary principle of natural justice] the Court/ Tribunal/Authority must always bear in mind the ultimate and over-riding objective underlying the said rule, viz., to ensure a fair hearing and to ensure that there is no failure of justice. It is this objective which should guide them in applying the rule to varying situations that arise before them. P a g e | 18 (7) There may be situations where the interests of state or public interest may call for a curtailing of the rule of audi alteram partem. In such situations, the Court may have to balance public/State interest with the requirement of natural justice and arrive at an appropriate decision.” 16. Placing reliance on the above, learned Standing Counsel submitted that mere not providing opportunity or non-hearing will not per se amounts to violation of the procedure, unless such violation has caused prejudice to delinquent in defending himself properly and effectively. If it is found that he has been so prejudiced, appropriate orders have to be made to rebate and remedy the prejudice including setting aside the enquiry and order of punishment. If no prejudice is established, delinquent is not entitled for any relief and no interference is called for. 17. In the case on hand, except asking for submission of the irrelevant material, which is not basis for taking action against the petitioner, no material is placed that the said alleged non-supply had caused prejudice to him. 18. Learned Standing Counsel also places reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in S. Janaki Iyer vs. Union of India and others 3, wherein, at paragraphs 19, 20, 22 and 23, the Hon’ble Apex Court held as follows: “19. A perusal of the chargesheet dated 10.02.1993 would show that not only did it contain the charges against the Appellant but the same was supported by documents as well. The charge against the Appellant was that she managed to get herself transferred from Kendriya Vidyalaya, Bangalore to Kendriya Vidyalaya, Bombay under a fake transfer order. In this respect, the 3 (2025) 8 SCC 696 P a g e | 19 language of the said chargesheet in our view is very clear and specific. A common man on going through the same, would understand as to what were the charges which an employee was called upon to face and defend. The consequence thereof was obviously that she was the beneficiary of a fake transfer order. It is further apparent and is made clear from the fact in unambiguous terms that she was the sole beneficiary of the said transfer order. The plea therefore with regard to the vagueness of the chargesheet cannot be sustained. 20. The aspect with regard to non-supply of the copy of the Preliminary Inquiry Report again would not hold for long for the simple reason that it was never made the basis for coming to a conclusion in the regular Departmental Inquiry with regard to the guilt of the Appellant. It is an admitted fact that after the preliminary Inquiry, chargesheet was issued to the Appellant and thereafter a regular Departmental Inquiry was held where both the parties had led their respective evidence and on that basis the Inquiry Officer has returned his findings. 22. No prejudice having been caused because of the non- supply of the preliminary Inquiry Report to the Appellant, the plea of violation of the principles of natural justice would not be available to the Appellant. As a matter of principle, violation of the principles of justice cannot be on the touchstone of technical infringement made the basis of setting aside the action taken by the authority against an employee unless it is established that grave prejudice has been caused to an employee because of non-supply of a particular document. Nothing has also come on record which would indicate that the Appellant had ever sought for the Preliminary Inquiry Report after the issuance of the chargesheet. Similar would be the position with regard to the other documents also which are alleged to have not been supplied to her as the nature and extent of disadvantage or handicap caused or suffered by the Appellant, in the absence of the documents, is missing in the departmental proceedings or the pleadings. 23. No grounds have been laid down indicating the prejudice which has been caused to her either during the inquiry or at the stage of projecting her response to the show cause notice given by the disciplinary authority. Mere assertion that some documents have not been supplied or even mentioning the said documents would not be enough unless the consequential prejudice which would or has been caused to a delinquent employee is put forth.” P a g e | 20 19. Placing reliance on the above, learned Standing Counsel would submit that non-supply of copy of preliminary enquiry report again would not hold for long for the simple reason that it was never made basis for coming to a conclusion in the regular departmental enquiry with regard to the guilt of the Appellant. Basing on the preliminary enquiry, charge sheet was issued to conduct regular departmental enquiry, where both the parties had led their respective evidence and basing on the departmental enquiry, the Enquiry Authority had recorded its findings. Delinquent cannot rely upon and seek report of the preliminary enquiry and the documents annexed thereto. 20. In the case on hand also, petitioner had faced departmental enquiry subsequent to issuance of charge memo. As such, vigilance enquiry report and the documents referred thereto did not form basis for the impugned punishment, as such, non-supply of the same cannot be termed as violation and the action now initiated is not based on the preliminary enquiry report. It is only after a full length departmental enquiry, as such, the authorities have conducted enquiry strictly in accordance with the rules and after affording adequate opportunity to the petitioner, have imposed the penalty, as such requires no interference by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 21. Though the petitioner sought for the documents in Exs.E-01 to E-234 prior to the issuance of present charge memo, the petitioner thereafter participated in the enquiry and it is the specific case of the respondents that all the said documents are not against the petitioner and they are related to other P a g e | 21 employees and the findings recorded against the petitioner are only with regard to few statements which were mentioned in the enquiry report, which were already furnished to the petitioner along with the report of the enquiry officer. Petitioner had participated in oral enquiry and on the depositions made by the witnesses, he was given opportunity to cross-examine them, as such no prejudice is caused to the petitioner, as the material sought for is not relevant for the purpose of initiating action against the petitioner and the material which are relevant was already submitted along with enquiry report. Though the proceedings issued for furnishing along with the enquiry report clearly indicates that enclosures were appended to the enquiry report, the same is disputed by the petitioner and went on submitting representations without submitting his explanation to the findings of the enquiry officer. Though it is stated by the authorities that the enquiry report contains the annexures relied upon by the authorities for the proposed action, there is no specific acknowledgment in view of the supply of the said documents to the petitioner. As the initial statement of the petitioner for supply of Exs.E-01 to E-234 is concerned, that was prior to issuance of very charge memo, which ultimately culminated into final action, whereas the petitioner had sought for only the evidence part though all the evidences are not required for him, as the enquiry report only suggests few names as mentioned above, and as such, the authorities ought to have supplied those documents to the petitioner enabling him for submitting his explanation. P a g e | 22 22. As submitted by the learned Standing Counsel that petitioner had not pleaded any prejudice while submitting his explanation or in the Writ Petition with cogent reasons to believe that some prejudice was caused against him. Petitioner went on asking for said documents repeatedly would also clearly establish that he wanted to drag the proceedings. However, as the punishment imposed is a major penalty though the pleadings are not there for establishing the prejudice caused to the petitioner, the authorities ought to be more conscious while imposing such penalty, leaving apart the conduct of the petitioner. 23. It is well settled law that, where an illegality is found, the proceedings where it suffered such illegality, the same can be rectified and proceeded further without initiating from the inception. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Chairman, Life Insurance Corporation of India and others vs. A.Masilamani4, at paragraphs 14, 16 and 17, it was held as follows: “14. In the present case, the High Court after reappreciating the entire evidence available on record, came to the conclusion that in the course of enquiry proceedings, certain witnesses had not been examined in the presence of the delinquent respondent, and that hence, no proper opportunity was given to him to cross-examine such witnesses. Moreover, the documents relied upon by the enquiry officer, were not properly proved by any witness and ultimately, it was held that the findings of the enquiry officer stood vitiated for non-compliance with mandatory requirements of the Regulations applicable herein, as well as for violating the principles of natural justice. The Court further held that the appellate authority had not applied its mind to the case, and had failed to consider the case as required under Regulation 46(2) of the 1960 Regulations. Thus, in light of the aforementioned observations, the Court set aside the punishment imposed upon the respondent, and also 4 (2013) 6 SCC 530 P a g e | 23 refused to give the appellant any opportunity to continue the enquiry from the point that it stood vitiated, consequently therefore, denying any opportunity to prove the documents relied upon, as also denying the respondent adequate opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses concerned, etc. only on the ground that a long time had now passed. 16. It is a settled legal proposition, that once the Court sets aside an order of punishment, on the ground that the enquiry was not properly conducted, the Court cannot reinstate the employee. It must remit the concerned case to the disciplinary authority, for it to conduct the enquiry from the point that it stood vitiated, and conclude the same. 17. The second question involved herein is also no longer res integra. Whether or not the disciplinary authority should be given an opportunity to complete the enquiry afresh from the point that it stood vitiated depends upon the gravity of delinquency involved. Thus, the court must examine the magnitude of misconduct alleged against the delinquent employee. It is in view of this, that courts/tribunals are not competent to quash the charge-sheet and related disciplinary proceedings, before the same are concluded on the aforementioned grounds.” 24. A perusal of the aforesaid decision makes it clear that, where disciplinary proceedings are vitiated by violation of the principles of natural justice or other procedural requirements, the matter ordinarily ought to be remitted to the disciplinary authority to proceed from the stage at which the defect occurred. The necessity for such remand depends upon the nature and gravity of the alleged misconduct. Ordinarily, disciplinary proceedings ought not to be quashed at the threshold merely on account of such procedural violation. 25. The Hon’ble Apex Court, while considering the proceedings impugned therein, held that the irregularity was found at a stage where the proceedings from that stage can be vitiated and the same can be proceeded after P a g e | 24 remedying the said irregularity and proceeded further to have logical conclusion of the proceedings. 26. The depositions/statements of witnesses, which are referred to in the Enquiry Report i.e., Sri K.Nagendra, Sri M.Lakshmi Narayana Reddy, Sri K.Srikanth Reddy, Sri P.Maruthi Varaprasad, Sri G.Rajagopal, Sri M.Ravi, Smt. M.Geetha, Sri Butra Bayanna, Sri butra Sadasiva, Sri Rayapati Nagabhushanam, Sri Bheemineni Chandrababu Naidu, Sri Govinda Ramachandra, have some bearing on the issue for submitting petitioner’s explanation. Therefore, this Court is of the considered opinion that the proceedings of passing order by the disciplinary authority without furnishing the depositions mentioned above to the delinquent for submitting his explanation vitiates from that stage, as such, the impugned order is liable to be set aside. 27. For the foregoing reasons mentioned above, the impugned order dated 07.05.2024 vide Memo No.SE/O/ATP/EE-T/PO/JAO/Adm./S1/ D.No.372/24, dated 07.05.2024 is hereby set aside. The matter is remitted to the disciplinary authority to furnish the depositions of the witnesses mentioned above to the petitioner and to provide him an opportunity of submitting explanation within stipulated period and pass appropriate orders basing on the explanation submitted by the petitioner, in accordance with law, within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. P a g e | 25 28. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed to the extent indicated above. No order as to costs. Interim orders, if any, granted earlier shall stand vacated, and all pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. __________________________ JUSTICE BALAJI MEDAMALLI Date: 19.09.2026 BMS / SAK P a g e | 26 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE BALAJI MEDAMALLI WRIT PETITION NO: 24604 OF 2024 Date: 19.09.2026 SAK