Telangana High Court
WA/1990/2004 of A.P. Eastern Power Distribution Co. Ltd, Vs Sri D. Uma Maheswara Rao, on 29 December 2004
COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY NINTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND FOUR PRESENT THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.ANANDA REDDY WRIT APPEAL NO : 1990 of 2004 (Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD
WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY NINTH DAY OF DECEMBERTWO THOUSAND AND FOUR
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI
and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.ANANDA REDDY
WRIT APPEAL NO : 1990 of 2004
(Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the Order dated12/10/2004 in WP NO : 18723 OF 2004 on the file of the High Court.)
Between:
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
1. A.P. Eastern Power Distribution Co. Ltd, rep. by its Chairman &
Managing Director, Opp: Saraswati Park, Visakhapatnam.
2 Superintending Engineer-Operation Circle, A.P. Eastern Power Distribution Co. Ltd, Opp: Green Park Hotel, Visakhapatnam.
3 The Divisional Electrical Engineer, A.P. Eastern Power Distribution Co. Ltd, Operation Zone-I, Opp: Green Park Hotel, Visakhapatnam.
4 The Divisional Electrical Engineer, A.P. Eastern Power Distribution Co. Ltd, Operation Zone-II, Kancharlapalem, Visakhapatnam.
..... APPELLANT(S)
AND
1 Sri D. Uma Maheswara Rao, S/o Suryanarayana, West, A.P. Eastern Power Distribution Co. Ltd, Visakhapatnam R/o Visakhapatnam.
2 Sri S. Ramakrishna, S/o Varahalu,
A.P. Eastern Power Distribution Co. Ltd, Visakhapatnam R/o Visakhapatnam.
3 Sri K. Prasada Rao, S/o Viswanadham,
A.P. Eastern Power Distribution Co. Ltd, Visakhapatnam R/o Visakhapatnam.
4 Sri K. Kanaka Raju, S/o Chitti,
A.P. Eastern Power Distribution Co. Ltd, Visakhapatnam R/o Visakhapatnam.
5 Sri B. Laxmana Rao, S/o Late Ramapathi Rao, A.P. Eastern Power Distribution Co. Ltd, Visakhapatnam R/o Visakhapatnam.
6 Sri S. Narasinga Rao, S/o Satyam,
A.P. Eastern Power Distribution Co. Ltd, Visakhapatnam R/o Visakhapatnam.
7 Sri V.V.S. Chandrasekhar, S/o V. Subba Rao, A.P. Eastern Power Distribution Co. Ltd, Visakhapatnam R/o Visakhapatnam.
8 Sri Ch. S.V.V. Prasada Rao, S/o Anantha Rao, A.P. Eastern Power Distribution Co. Ltd, Visakhapatnam R/o Visakhapatnam.
9 Sri D. Ramesh, S/o Seetharambabu,
A.P. Eastern Power Distribution Co. Ltd, Visakhapatnam R/o Visakhapatnam.
10 Sri A.V. Rama Rao, S/o Rambabu,
A.P. Eastern Power Distribution Co. Ltd, Visakhapatnam R/o Visakhapatnam.
.....RESPONDENTS
Counsel for the Appellants:MR. M.V. SUBBA RAO
Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 to 10: MR.NUTY RAM MOHAN RAO
The Court at the admission stage made the following Order:
(per TMK,J)
The present writ appeal is filed aggrieved by the order of a learned Single Judge ofthis Court dated 12.10.2004 in W.P.No.18723 of 2004.
The respondents herein filed the above writ petition to declare the action ofthe appellants herein in rejecting their case for reinstatement into service vide Memodated 29.09.2004 as illegal and arbitrary and to declare that the respondents areentitled to be reinstated into service on par with eleven other employees, who hadbeen reinstated vide proceedings dated 28.07.2004 against whom criminal case aswell as departmental proceedings were pending.
The learned single Judge of this Court, after hearing both the parties, held that theimpugned Memo dated 29.09.2004 is not sustainable under law since the firstrespondent therein reinstated eleven other persons who are facing similar chargesand therefore, directed to reinstate the writ petitioners also by raising the order ofsuspension against them. The learned Judge also made it clear that raising of thesuspension order will not in any way affect the authority of the respondents therein toproceed with the departmental enquiry subject to the relevant provisions and theorders of the Court.
Arguments
Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that through proceedings dated28.07.2004 eleven other persons were reinstated into service in view of the fact thatthey have subjected themselves to the departmental enquiry, but the respondentsherein even though they have submitted the explanations to the charge memo, sincethey have not subjected themselves to the departmental enquiry, they are notentitled to be reinstated into service on par with eleven other employees, who hadbeen reinstated into service.
Under the above circumstances, without going into the merits of the case, and inview of the fact that the respondents herein have submitted the explanations to thecharge Memo, it would suffice, if the appellants are directed to conduct departmentalenquiry on the basis of the explanations submitted by the respondents and passappropriate orders within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copyof this order in accordance with the Rules.
With the above direction, the order of the learned single Judge is modified and ____________________
T.MEENA KUMARI,J
29-12-2004_________________S.ANANDA REDDY,J
Lvl/usd
To1. A.P. Eastern Power Distribution Co. Ltd, rep. by its Chairman &Managing Director, Opp: Saraswati Park, Visakhapatnam. 2 Superintending Engineer-Operation Circle, A.P. Eastern PowerDistribution Co. Ltd, Opp: Green Park Hotel, Visakhapatnam. 3 The Divisional Electrical Engineer, A.P. Eastern Power DistributionCo. Ltd, Operation Zone-I, Opp: Green Park Hotel, Visakhapatnam.4 The Divisional Electrical Engineer, A.P. Eastern Power DistributionCo. Ltd, Operation Zone-II, Kancharlapalem, Visakhapatnam.5. Two CD copies.