AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
B. Sudershan Reddy, J.—Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri S. Ravindranath, learned standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent-Corporation.
This writ petition is directed against the proceedings Memo. No. SE/O/NLR/Adm.CD2/ D/No. 307/99 dated May 1999/June 1, 1999 directing the petitioner herein to show cause as to why the punishment proposed in paragraph 8 should not be imposed on him. The petitioner was accordingly directed to furnish his explanation to the Superintending Engineer, Operation, Nellore. According to the petitioner, this show cause notice suffers from inherent lack of jurisdiction and, therefore, even though it is a show cause notice, is liable to be set aside by this Court.
Brief and relevant facts may be noticed before adverting to the question whether the petitioner is entitled for any relief. There was an enquiry against the petitioner initiated by the respondents in the year 1997 on the ground that the petitioner had committed irregularities i.e., claiming of Travelling Allowance bills on the dates/time, on which he appeared for the Ninth class examination. A detailed inquiry was ordered and the Inquiry Officer held the charges framed against the petitioner proved and based on the said inquiry the Divisional Electrical Engineer (Operation), Gudur, passed order in Memo.No.DEE/O/GDR/ ADM/U.1/D.No. 127/97 dated: November 14, 1997 imposing punishment of postponement of one increment with cumulative effect, besides recovery of Rs. 118.00 (Rupees One hundred and eighteen only) being false TA and DA claimed and drawn, The said order has become final and it was even implemented.
While the things stood thus the second respondent herein once again appointed the Divisional Engineer/Enquiries/Cuddapah, as an Inquiry Officer to make an inquiry into the very same allegation, alleging that the petitioner attended the 9th class examination in Z.P. High School, Gudur from 2.00 P.M. to 4.30 p.m. on March 8, 1995 and on March 21, 1995 and claimed a false TA Bill for two days i.e., on March 8, 1995 and March 21, 1995. This is the exact charge which was levelled against the petitioner for which there was an inquiry and finding resulting in punishment of withdrawal of one increment with cumulative effect. The petitioner, however, appears to have participated in the enquiry without raising any objection and questioning the jurisdiction of the second respondent in ordering fresh inquiry on the basis of the very same charge. The Inquiry Officer appears to have submitted his report based on which the present show cause notice has been issued by the Superintending Engineer Operation/Nellore. The petitioner challenges the said show cause notice in this writ petition.
Learned Counsel for the petitioner contends that the Superintending Engineer has no jurisdiction whatsoever in law to direct an inquiry against the petitioner with reference to the same charges, which have resulted in an order passed by the competent authority on November 14, 1997 postponing one increment with cumulative effect.
It is the case of the respondent-Corporation that the Superintending Engineer has set the law in motion against the petitioner in the purported exercise of his power under Regulation 14-A of A.P.S.E.B. Employees Revised Conduct and Discipline and Appeal Regulations (for short ''the Regulations''), which authorises an authority superior to the authority having power of appellate jurisdiction as provided in Regulations 13 and 14 may suo motu or on an application call for the records relating to any order passed or proceedings recorded by a subordinate authority, for the purpose of examining the legality and regularity or propriety of such an order. The superior authority is entitled to pass such an order as he deems fit confirming setting aside or revising the order or proceedings under consideration. The very same Regulation 14-A says that before invoking the said power the competent authority is required to set aside that order passed by the subordinate authority, if it is satisfied that the order was passed:
(a) due to inadvertence; or
(b) on account of false representation of facts before the concerned authority; or
(c) without hearing the party affected.
It is only under those circumstances, an authority superior to the authority who passed the original order can be allowed to set the law in motion for the purpose of satisfying itself the legality, regularity or propriety of the order passed by the subordinate authority.
But, in the instant case, the Chief Engineer is the competent authority to invoke such jurisdiction under Regulation 14-A of the Regulations and not the Superintending Engineer. There is no dispute about the same. Therefore, the proceedings initiated by the Superintending Engineer against the petitioner suffers from incurable legal infirmities and jurisdictional errors. Therefore, the impugned proceedings are liable to be quashed only on that ground.
Be that as it may, the record made available by the learned Standing Counsel for the Corporation, discloses that the matter was placed before the Chief Engineer Electricity, Nellore Zone, Nellore, who is admittedly the competent authority. The proposal made by the Superintending Engineer was placed before the Chief Engineer in which it is stated that the punishment awarded to the petitioner is not commensurate with the gravity of the charge established. It is under those circumstances, the Chief Engineer directed the Superintending Engineer to reopen the case and award punishment as per the Regulations in vogue. Even the Chief Engineer could have set the last in motion against the petitioner in purported exercise of Regulation 14-A of the Regulations, only on the grounds stated supra that is to say that the order complained of has been passed:
(a) due to inadvertence; or
(b) on account of false representation of facts before the concerned authority; or
(c) without hearing the party affected.
None of these grounds were mentioned in the proceedings now initiated against the petitioner. The proceedings against the petitioner which have become final could not have been reopened on the ground that the punishment awarded by the disciplinary authority is not commensurate with the gravity of the charges proved. It is not the case of the respondents that such an order was passed by the disciplinary authority against the petitioner herein only on account of inadvertence or on account of a false report of acts made by the petitioner before the authority or an order was passed without hearing the parties affected. Therefore, even the proceedings initiated at the instance of the Chief-Engineer suffers from jurisdictional errors.
Viewed from any angle, the proceedings initiated against the petitioner cannot be allowed to go on in law. The proceedings impugned are accordingly'' set aside. The writ petition is according]y allowed to the extent indicated. There shall be no order as to costs.
This order, however, shall not preclude the respondents to avail the remedy for reopening the case, if there is any such authority vested in any of the authorities.