The Central Power Distribution Comopany Of Ap Ltd., v. Rahemat Ali

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY AND HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G.SHYAM PRASAD WRIT APPEAL No.1056 of 2017 Date:07.8.2017 Between:

The Central Power Distribution Company of A.P. Ltd., presently known as TSSPDCL, reptd by its Divisional Engineer (Electrical) Operation, Hyderabad and two others. ..... Appellants And:

Rahemat Ali, S/o Hyder .....Respondent Counsel for the appellants: Mr. R.Vinod Reddy Standing Counsel for TSSPDCL Counsel for the respondent: Mr. N.Ramesh The Court made the following:

JUDGMENT: (per Hon'ble Sri Justice C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy) The respondent, a permanent employee, of the then Central Power Distribution Company of Andhra Pradesh Limited, working as Assistant Lineman suddenly made scarce of himself for nearly two years and when he sought to report to duty, the employer had rightly did not allow him to report to duty and initiated disciplinary proceedings against him. The said proceedings culminated in his removal from service. His attempt to get the said removal order set at naught did not succeed with the dismissal of I.D.No.117 of 2009 by the Labour Court-III, Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad, vide award, dated 03.02.2010. Feeling aggrieved by the said award, the respondent filed Writ Petition No.4049 of 2011.

The sheet anchor of the plea of the respondent before the learned single Judge was that Regulation-28(3) of the Andhra Pradesh State Electricity Board Service Regulations, Part-I (hereinafter referred to as "the Regulations"), adopted by the Andhra Pradesh TRANSCO/APCPDCL, was declared as unconstitutional by a Division Bench of this Court in Chief Engineer, A.P.S.E.B. Vs. K.Naga Hema1 and that therefore, initiation of disciplinary proceedings against the respondent under the said Regulation was bad. The learned single Judge 1 1998 (1) ALD 304

while placing reliance on the said judgment, which was subsequently followed by the Division Bench in Writ Appeal No.898 of 1995, vide judgment, dated 01.4.1997, opined that initiation of disciplinary proceedings against the respondent under Regulation-28(3) of the Regulations was bad. The learned single Judge while holding that the appellants are entitled to initiate fresh disciplinary proceedings against the respondent, nevertheless granted part relief to the respondent on his agreeing for forfeiture of back wages during the period of his absence, i.e., from 23.8.2001 to 13.8.2003. The learned single Judge has termed the facts of the case as peculiar. But in our view, they are very familiar to this Court.

Instances galore where many employees abscond from duties and report back after a few years by coming out with distorted and fabricated versions. It is to meet such eventualities that Regulation-28(3) of the Regulations was conceived. However, the said Regulation was held bad for the reason that unless an enquiry is held and a conclusion is drawn that unauthorised absence is without justification, declaration that automatic cessation occurred on account of absence of employee is in violation of Article-14 of the Constitution of India and also of the principles of natural justice.

the Regulations by the appellants cannot be termed as valid. However, in the instant case, though the said Regulation is referred to, regular disciplinary proceedings have been initiated against the respondent treating his case as one of misconduct. Therefore, for mere mentioning of Regulation-28(3) of the Regulations, the disciplinary proceedings initiated by the appellants cannot be held to be illegal or invalid. The learned single Judge rendered a finding that even during the disciplinary proceedings, proper procedure has not been followed. He has, however, felt that as more than 13 years had elapsed, it would not be in the interests of justice that a fresh enquiry is initiated against the respondent. We are however not inclined to accept this view of the learned single Judge.

Unauthorised absence breeds indiscipline and causes serious inconvenience and hardship to the organisation. Such acts cannot be viewed lightly. If, in the enquiry, it is found that there is no justifiable reason for an employee to be unauthorisedly absent, his services are liable to be terminated. Showing of undue sympathies in favour of such employees would cause serious damage to public interest. Therefore, we hold that the impugned order of the learned single Judge to the extent that it has directed reinstatement of the respondent with certain conditions cannot be sustained.

part of the order of the learned single Judge, we permit the appellants to initiate fresh disciplinary proceedings, de hors Regulation-28(3) of the Regulations, against the respondent and complete the same within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

The Writ Appeal is, accordingly, allowed to the extent indicated above.

As a sequel to disposal of the Writ Appeal, WAMP.No.2034 of 2017 filed by the appellant for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous.

_____________________________ JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY ________________________ JUSTICE G.SHYAM PRASAD 07th August 2017 DR