Telangana High Court
N Ganesh, Hyderabad vs Energy Secy, Hyderabad And Another on 18 July, 2025
Author: Nagesh Bheemapaka
Bench: Nagesh Bheemapaka
1
wp_23295_2017
NBK, J
THE HON' BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA
WRIT PETITION No.23295 of 2017
ORDER:
Consequent to a paper publication on 14.03.2012 in the "Namasthe Telangana" Telugu Daily Newspaper, on the alleged irregularities in the Construction of Model Sub-Station at Erragadda for Central Power Training Institute (APCPDCL) (now TSSPDCL), an explanation was sought from the petitioner, who is Additional Assistant Engineer associated with the Project. The petitioner submitted his explanation on 10.05.2013. Finding that the explanation unsatisfactory, a departmental enquiry was ordered against six charges framed against the petitioner.
1.1 The charges are to the effect that the petitioner had indulged in dereliction of duty while executing the works in the area which does not pertain to his jurisdiction and without obtaining written instructions from higher authorities thereby deviating the procedure; that the petitioner is reported to have indulged in grave irregularities in execution of Civil works and non-maintenance of "M-Book" thereby misleading the organization and benefitting the contractor and causing loss to the organization; that the petitioner committed irregularities while executing and completing the works including drawal of material by December 2010 without obtaining approval or sanction for revised estimate; that the petitioner committed irregularities while claiming the bills in excess of the works carried out i.e., excess bill of Rs.33,47,432/- was done and paid to M/s Maria Electricals Limited for executing Civil Works Outdoor Sub-Substation, and No "M-Book" was furnished for the works for providing JCB for removing rocks, leveling surrounding and removing tree and bushes for an amount of Rs.1,32,600, and 2 wp_23295_2017 NBK, J that billing was done for Rs.6,000/- without executing the work for providing of transformer neutral current of PS, that an amount of Rs.5,69,533/- was paid to contractor for galvanization of steel material even though there was no necessity for galvanization and exorbitant rates were claimed in the bill; that the petitioner committed irregularities by claiming bills by adopting excess rates and quantities than the prescribed quantity and rates without following SSR rates for certain items and causing huge revenue loss to the organization and benefiting the contractor; that the petitioner was negligent and derelict in his duties by failing to devolute the excess material drawn even after completion of works and claiming part-bill for making payment to the contractor.
1.2 Petitioner submitted his explanation dated 20.02.2014 denying the charges. The Enquiry Officer conducted enquiry by obtaining the depositions of witnesses, namely, Mr. DR Prasad (the then CGM/Master Plan), Mr. M. Sudhakar Reddy (ex-CGM), Mr. K. chidambaraiah (ex- SE/Master Plan), Mr. Y. Venkanna (DE/ Master Plan-II), Mr. P. Jayapal (SAO/Master Plan), Mr. P. Anjaiah (the then AO/Master Plan), Mr. EM Chekravarthy (ex-ADE/Master Plan), and recorded their statements. After enquiry, he furnished a Report wherein the charges No.2, 4(a, b, c) and 6 were held to be proved against the petitioner, and other charges not proved. The Disciplinary authority, accepting the enquiry report, proposed imposition of the punishment of "Stoppage of two annual grade increments with cumulative effect besides recovering 15% from the amount of Rs.29.80 lakh loss sustained by the company" by Memo dated 18.07.2014, and called for an explanation from the petitioner by way of a Show Cause notice as to why the punishment could not be imposed. The petitioner submitted his explanation dated 25.09.2014. Thereafter, the above punishment was imposed by Final 3 wp_23295_2017 NBK, J Order dated 25.02.2016. Challenging the punishment, the petitioner filed an appeal, however, the same was rejected by Order dated 27.05.2017. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner filed this writ petition.
2. Heard Mr. BondempallyRamulu, learned counsel for the petitioner; and Mr. N. Sreedhar Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for TSSPDCL. Perused the record.
3. Having considered the respective submissions and perused the record, it is to be noted that it is given to understand that the Project Construction of an external lab and internal lab for the Central Power Training Institute being the first of its kind, and an enquiry was initiated upon a paper publication with regard to the irregularities occurred in the execution of the Project. It is not the case of the petitioner that the petitioner was not informed of his involvement in the nature of irregularities, and on the contrary, explanation was sought from the petitioner and an enquiry duly following the principles of natural justice was followed by recording the depositions of the witnesses, who were also the members of the team in the execution of the project. In the enquiry, the specific charges with regard to "non-maintenance of M-Book", and the specific financial loss quantified at Rs.33,47,432/- of excess-billing to favour M/s Maria Electricals Limited, and "non-furnishing of M-Book for an amount of Rs.1,32,600/- for the works relating to providing JCB for removing rocks, leveling surround and removing trees and bushes, and illegal billing of Rs.6,000/- without even executing the work for providing transformer neutral current of PS, and performing 'galvanization though it was not necessary thereby paying an amount of Rs.5,69,533/-; are held to be proved against the petitioner. Further, the failure to devolute the excess material drawn after completion of work and claiming part-bill for making the payment to the contractor has been proved against the petitioner. These are specific charges 4 wp_23295_2017 NBK, J against the petitioner that were held proved after due enquiry in which the petitioner participated and also submitted his explanation. The petitioner cannot plead that the enquiry officer was unethical in considering his explanation merely because the findings have gone against him, and it is to be noted that the findings are based on specific charges and evidence on record.
3.1 The contention being canvassed that he was merely "executing" the instructions of superior officers is not a card that can conveniently be played by the petitioner in the aftermath of paper publication and a duly constituted enquiry proceeding. There is admittedly no plausible explanation for non-maintenance of M-Book, and it cannot be said that the petitioner was instructed not to maintain an M-Book and deviate from such procedures. Making payments to the contractors, as alleged in the Charges at 4(a, b, c) relate to specific payments for specific works, and a payment of Rs.6,000/- is said to have been paid without even executing the work of providing transformer neutral current to PS, and an amount of Rs.5,69,533 was paid to a work of galvanization that is not needed, thereby unduly benefiting the contractor for unnecessary work and denting the public exchequer by an overall estimated amount of Rs.29.80 lakhs.
3.2 It is to be noted that the petitioner is not a spectator at the worksite, instead he is executing the work as a responsible authority, and he is expected to execute the works in the manner they are to be executed by maintenance of proper records of works performed, payments made, approvals obtained etc., as required under the departmental and project procedures. There is no material placed on record that the superior officers have approved the petitioner to make payments in excess amounts of actual SSR rates. Though the Project is purportedly a first-of-its-kind, the petitioner is not a novice to official procedures of executing a Project, and the essential 5 wp_23295_2017 NBK, J requirements while executing a project, like material drawn, work executed, verifying the claims with SSR rates, maintaining M-Book, ensuring the satisfactory completion of work for release of payments, obtaining approval from the competent authority for settling bills/claims, etc., are undeniably part and parcel of the works that the petitioner encounters on a daily basis. Except the pleading that the petitioner merely executed the instructions, there is no evidentiary material to prove that the specific findings on the Charges 4(a, b, c), with regard to pecuniary loss, are wrong. The record discloses that though charges Nos.2, 4(a, b, c) and 6 are proved against the petitioner in the departmental enquiry, the Disciplinary authority imposed a punishment of recovery of only 15% of the loss incurred on account of the lapses on the part of the petitioner.
4. It is settled law that this Court under Article 226 is not an appellate authority to reappreciate the evidence and arrive at its own conclusions. The disciplinary authority is the sole judge of facts. Unless there is a procedural irregularity, merely because an alternate view could have been possible,cannot be the sole reason for this Court to entertain a writ petition against the punishment in a duly constituted enquiry proceeding.
5. At this juncture, it is relevant to refer to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court inState of Rajasthan v. Mohammed Ayub Naz 1, wherein the apex Court, by referring to the earlier judgment in B.C. Chaturvedi v. Union of India 2,held as follows:
"When an inquiry is conducted on charges of misconduct by a public servant, the Court / Tribunal is concerned to determine whether the inquiry was held by a competent officer or whether rules of natural 1 LAWS (SC) 2006-1-6 (Civil Appeal No.939 of 2003) 2 1995 SCC (6) 749 6 wp_23295_2017 NBK, J justice are complied with. Whether the findings or conclusions are based on some evidence, the authority entrusted with the power to hold inquiry has jurisdiction, power and authority to reach a finding of fact or conclusion. But that finding must be based on some evidence. Neither the technical rules of Evidence Act nor of proof of fact or evidence as defined therein, apply to disciplinary proceeding. Adequacy of evidence or reliability of evidence cannot be permitted to be canvassed before the Court/Tribunal. When the authority accepts the evidence and the conclusion receives support therefrom, the disciplinary authority is entitled to hold that the delinquent officer is guilty of the charge. The disciplinary authority is the sole judge of facts. Where appeal is presented, the appellate authority has co- extensive power to re-appreciate the evidence or the nature of punishment. The Court/Tribunal in its power of judicial review does not act as appellate authority to re-appreciate the evidence and to arrive at its own independent findings on the evidence. The Court/Tribunal may interfere where the authority held that the proceedings against the delinquent officer in a manner inconsistent with the rules of natural justice or in violation of statutory rules prescribing the mode of inquiry or where the conclusion or finding reached by the disciplinary authority is based on no evidence. If the conclusion or finding be such as no reasonable person would have ever reached, the Court / Tribunal may interfere with the conclusion or the finding and mould the relief so as to make it appropriate to the facts of that case."
6. In the instant case, it is not the case of the petitioner that the Disciplinary authority has, with a mala fide or prejudicial intention, initiated proceedings against him. On the contrary, the irregularities came to notice of the authorities after a Daily newspaper reported on the irregularities, consequent to which an enquiry was initiated. The argument that the ChargeNo.1, which is broad in nature, has not been proved and therefore there cannot be locus for other charges, cannot be countenanced; for if such 7 wp_23295_2017 NBK, J an argument is to be accepted, there would not be any necessity for framing any other charges not only in the instant case but in any departmental proceeding in general. It is to be noted that Charges 2, 4(a, b, c) and 6 are very specific and even speak about the pecuniary loss suffered by the Corporation. Further, the competency of the Chairman and Managing Director, who is at the helm of affairs in overall administrative functioning of the organization, in ordering an enquiry and imposing the punishment can neither be the bone of contention in the instant case, nor nullify the findings in the enquiry proceedings. Furthermore, the Appellate Authority at the Board level has reappreciated the entire evidence and rejected the case of the petitioner, by way of a speaking Order dated 27.05.2017.
7. In that view of the matter, this Court does not find any reasonable grounds to interfere with the impugned Orders dated 25.02.2016, and 27.05.2017, passed by the Chairman & Managing Director, and the Appellate Authority, respectively.
8. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.
________________________________ JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA 18th July, 2025 ksm