APHC010791412013 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3457] TUESDAY,THE TWENTIETH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N WRIT PETITION NO: 16177/2013 Between: 1. Ch. Surya Prakash Rao, S/O. Late Simhadri Appala Naidu, Aged About 57 Years, 0cc: General Manager, Quality Control, Corporate Offfice Of A.P.C.P.D.C.L. Visakhapatnam ...Petitioner AND 1. The Government Of Ap Rep By Its Prinicipal Secratary, Power And Energy Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad. 2. The Eastern Power Distribution Company Limited, Rep By Its, Chairman And Managing Director, Visakhapatnam, Visakhapatnam District. 3. The Eastern Power Distribution Company Limited, Rep By Its, Director Finance And H.R.D. Visakhapatnam District ...Respondent(S): 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 to declaring the impugned proceedings HRD/DC/P0- IV/F.108/04 D.NO. 32/2007 of rejection of Appeal dt. 21.1.2007 by confirmed the order in memo No. HRD/DC/P0-IV/F. 108/04 D.NO. 813/2006 dt.25.5.2006 of the 2nd respondent by awarding the punishment of stoppage of 3 increments without cumulative effect by withdrawing other co delinquent employee cases vide T.O. memo dt.21.1.2009 as illegal arbitrary, 2 discriminatory violative of principal of natural justice and violative of article 14, 16,21 and 300(A) of constitution of India and set a side the same and consequentially to direct the respondents to withdraw the proceedings dt. 21.1.2007 as confirmed the final order dt. 25.5.2006 on par with 7 other co delinquent employees cases vide T.O. memo dt. 21.1.2009 by consider the further promotions along with the all attendant benefits of the petitioner and to pass IA NO: 1 OF 2013(WPMP 15948 OF 2013 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 dispense with the filing of the original proceedings in Memo No. HRD/DC/P0- IV/F. 108/04 D No. 32/2007 dt. 21.01.2007 and Memo No. HRD/DC/PO- IV/F.108/04 D No. 813/2006 dt.25.5.2006 by substituting the Xerox copy of this same pending disposal of the writ petition and to pass IA NO: 2 OF 2013(WPMP 19596 OF 2013 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 expedite the herein of the above case as Expeditiously as possible pending disposal of the above writ petition and to pass IA NO: 5 OF 2013(WPMP 159098 OF 2013 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 Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. C SRINIVASA BABA Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR ENERGY 2. V V SATISH (SC for APEPDCL) 3. P ANAND SESHU (SC FOR APEPDCL) 4. A BHASKARA CHARY 3 The Court made the following: Order:- This writ petition was filed challenging the action in the impugned proceedings HRD/DC/PO-IV/F.108/04 D.NO.32/2007, whereby the appeal dated 21.01.2007 was rejected and the order in Memo No. HRD/DC/PO- IV/F.108/04 D.NO.813/2006 dated 25.05.2006 of the 2nd respondent was confirmed, by awarding the punishment of stoppage of three increments without cumulative effect, while withdrawing the cases of other co-delinquent employees vide T.O. Memo dated 21.01.2009. 2. Today, when the matter is taken up for hearing, Sri Tallapragada Sriram, the learned Junior Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of Sri V.V. Satish, the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents, submits that the petitioner passed away during the pendency of the writ petition. 3. Considering the nature of the prayer in the writ petition, it is clear that the petitioner is challenging the minor punishment imposed on him, whereby the 2nd respondent awarded the punishment of stoppage of three (03) increments without cumulative effect. 4. In view of the release of the increments after the initial three years of period, nothing further requires adjudication on merits. 5. Accordingly, this writ petition is closed. There shall be no order as to costs. 4 As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. ____________________ JUSTICE HARINATH.N 20.01.2026 PNS