LawSphereX

Ch.Masoom, v. Southern Power Distribution Company of Telangana Limited.

Court: High Court for State of Telangana

Bench: K. SARATH

Judgment date:

Case summary

High Court for State of Telangana judgment dated 2026-02-12. Ch.Masoom, v. Southern Power Distribution Company of Telangana Limited. Read the judgment and...

Judgment text

33021 [ IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE TWELFTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K. SARATH WRIT PETITION Nos. 4052 0. 40521 and 40522 ot 2025 't'l OF m T. Parashuramulu, s/o chandraiah, Aged about 38 years, Artisan Gradell operation, Keesara Section, TGSPDCL, Ri/o. Keesaragutta ... PETITIONER 1. Southern Power Distribution, Company of Telangana Limited' Represlnted by is Ctriiiman ano Managing birectbr, Mint Comp-ound, Hyderabad, T'G' 2. The Chairman and Managing Director, Southern Power Distribution Company of Telangana Ltd. Mint Comfound, Hyderabad, T. G. 3. The Director, HRD TGSPDCL, Corporate Office, Mint Compound, Hyderabad, T. G. 4. The Chief General Manager (HRD)' TGSPDCL, Corporate Office, Mint Compound, Hyderabad, T. G. 5. The Chief General Manager, (O & M) Rural Zone, TGSPDCL, Corporate Office, Mint ComPound, HYderabad. 6.

The Chief General Manager, Operation TGSPDCL, Medchal Zonal, Hyderabad. 7. The Superintending Engineer, Operation, TGSPDCL, Habsiguda, Hyderabad' 8. The Divisional Engineer Elecl, Op6ration, Keesara, TGSPDCL' Keesara' Habsiguda Circle. 9. State of Telangana, Represented-by its Principal Secretary, Energy Department, Secietariat, Hyderabad, T. G. ... RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of lndia pralng that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High court may be pleased to issue writ or direction preferably Writ of Mandamus by declaring the action of the: Respondents in imposing the penalty of stoppage of two (2) annual grade incrr:ments with cumulative effect vide impugned Memo. No. CGM/OP/Merdchal Zone/DE(Ty AAO/JAO/Adm. /D. No.

31 68/23 dated 24-02-2024 of the 6th Respondent without furnishing a copy of the enquiry report and on the dictates of the higher authority and further ordering recovery of an amount of Rupees 3,82,6721- vide Memo. No. DEE/OP/KEESARA/JAO(PAS)/D. No. dated nit- 12-2025 of tre 8th Respondent by placing reliance on subsequent material, which did not form part of enquiry proceedings, as being arbitrary, illegal, opposed to principles of natural justice, erroneous, contrary to the material on record and in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of lndia and to set-aside the same accordingly in interest of justice. IAN Petition under Section 'l5l CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the operation of impugned Memo. No. CGM/Op/Medchal ZonelDE(T/r\AO/JAO/Adm. /D. No. 3168/23 dated 24-02-2024 and the retated recovery proceedings issued vide Memo. No. DEE/OP/KEESARA/JAO(PASyD. No. dated nil..

12-2}25 by the 6th and 8th Respondents respectively. WRIT NO: 40521 oF 2025 Between: G. Nagarjun S;/o G. Bala Aged about 34 years, Artisan _Syvar1y, - Grade-ll Operation, Keesara Section, TGSPDCL, R7o. Keesaragutta ... PETITIONER AND 1. Southern Power Distribution Company of Telangana Limited, Represented by its Chairman and Managing Directbr, Mint Comp-ound, Hyderabaci, T. G. 2. The Chairman and Managing Director,. Southern Power Distribution Company of Telangana Ltd. Mint Compound, Hyderabad, T. G. 3. Th_e Director, HRD TGSPDCL, Corporate Office, Mint Compound, Hyderabad, T. G. 4. The Chief General Mq4qger (HRD), TGSPDCL, Corporate Office, Mint Compound, Hyderabad, T. G. 5. The Chief General Manager, (O and M) Rural Zone, TGSPDCL' Corporate Office, Mint Compound, HYderabad. 6. The Chief General Manager, Operation TGSPDCL' Medchal Zone, Hyderabad. 7. The Superintending Engineer, Operation, TGSPDCL, Habsiguda, Hyderabad. 8. The Divisional Engineer Elecl. , Operation.

Keesara, TGSPDCL, Keesara, Habsiguda Circle. 9. State of Telangana, Represented by its Principal Secretary, Energy Department, Secietariat, Hyderabad, T. G. ... RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue writ or direction preferably writ of Mandamus by declaring the action of the Respondents in imposing the penalty of stoppage of two (2) annual grade increments with cumulative effect vide impugned Memo. No. CG M/OP/Medchal ZoneIDE(T/AAO/JAO/Ad m. /D. No. 3'l 7 0 I 23 daled 241 O2l 2024 of the 6th Respondent without furnishing a copy of the enquiry report and on the dictates of the higher authority and further ordering recovery of an amount of Rupees 3,82,672t- vide Memo. No. DEE/OP/KEESARA/JAO(PASyD.

No dated nilt12t2o25 of the 8th Respondent by placing reliance on subsequent material, which did not form part of enquiry proceedings, as being arbitrary, illegal, opposed to principles of natural justice, erroneous, contrary to the material on record and in violation of Article 14 0f the constitution of lndia and to set-aside the same accrrdingly in interest of justice. Petition under Section 15'l CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the operation of impugned Memo. No. CGM/OP/Medchal ZonelDE(T)/AAO/JAO/Adm. /D. No. 3170/23 daled 241o212024 and the related recovery proceedings issued vide Memo. No. DEE/OP/KEESARA/JAO(PAS/D' No. dated nilt12l2025 by the 6th and 8th Respondents respectively Ch. Masoom, ! i/o Chinna lddaiah, Aged about 39 years, Junior Lineman Operation, Keesara Section, TGSPDCL, Rl/o. Keesaragutta ...

PETITIONER AND 1 Southern Power Distribution Company of Telangana Limited. , Represented by its Chairman & Managing Director, Mint Compound, Hyderabad, T. G. 2 The Chairman and Managing Director, Southern Power Distribution Company of Telangana Ltd. Mint Compound, Hyderabad, T. G. 3. The Director, HRD TGSPDCL, Corporate Office, Mint Compound, Hyderabad, T. G. 4. The Chief General Manager (HRD), TGSPDCL, Corporate Office, Mint Compo. rnd, Hyderabad, T. G. 5. The Chief General Manager, (O&M) Rural Zone, TGSPDCL, Corporate Office, Mint Cc,mpound, Hyderabad. 6. The C:hief General Manager, Operation TGSPDCL, Medchal Zone, Hyderabad. 7. The Superintending Engineer, Operation, TGSPDCL, Habsiguda, Hyderabad. 8. The Divisional Engineer, Elecl. Operation Keesara, TGSPDCL, Keesara, Habsiguda Circle. 9. State of Telangana, Represented by its Principal Secretary, Energy Departrnent, Secretariat, Hyderabad, T G. ...

RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 ot lhe Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstance'; stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to is sue writ or direction preferably Writ of Mandamus by declaring the action of the Respondents in imposing the penalty of stoppage of two (2) annual grade increrents with cumulative effect vide impugned Memo. No. CG M/O P/Medcha I Zon e/DE(T/AAO/JAO/Ad m. /D. No. 31 69 I 23 dated 24 -O2-2O24 of the 6th Respondent without furnishing a copy of the enquiry report and on the dictates of tl're higher authority and further ordering recovery of an amount of Rupees 3,82,6721- vide Memo. No. DEE/OP/KEESARA/JAO(PAS/D. No.

dated nil-12-2O25 cf the 8th Respondent by placing reliance on subsequent material, which did nr:t form part of enquiry proceedings, as being arbitrary, illegal, opposed to principles of natural justice, erroneous, contrary to the material on record and in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of lndia and to set-aside the same accordingly in interest of justice. ,,1 lA NO: 1 OF 2025 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 suspend the operation of impugned Memo. No. CcM/Op/tvledchal ZonelDE(TyAAO/JAO/Adm. /D. No. 3169123 dated 24-02-2024 and the retated recovery proceedings issued vide Memo. No. DEE/OP/KEESARA/JAO(PASyD. No. dated nil-12-2025 by the 6th and 8th Respondents respectively. Counsel for the Petitioner in all the Writ Petitions: Ms. CHEKURI JYOTSNA DEVI Counsel for the Respondents No. 1 to 8 in allthe Writ Petitions: SRI N. SREEDHAR REDDY, S. C.

FOR TGSPDCL Counsel for the Respondent No. 9 in all the Writ Petitions: GP FoR ENERGY The Court made the following: ORDER "-'--'-'-""-7 SK, J IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF. TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K. SARATH WRIT PETITION Nos. 4OS 20. 4O52L and. 40522 of 2o. 25 DATE:L2. O2 Between: 1. T. Parshuramulu Petitioner in WP No. 4O52O of 2025 2. G. llagarjuna Petitioner in WP No. 40521 of 2025 3. Ch. Masoom Petitioner in WP No. 40522 of 2025 AND 1. South,:rn Po'*,er Distribution Company Ltd. , represented by its C:hairman and Managing Director, Hyderabad and others . Respondents COMMO}I ORDER: 1. AIl these Writ Petitions are Iiled questioning the action o[ the rcspondents ln imposing the penalty of stoppage ol two (2) annual grade increments with cumulative effect vide Impugned Memo No. CGM/OP/ Medchal ZonelDE (T)iAAOIJAO D. No. 3168, 3170, /Adm. / and 3169/2023 dated 24. 02. 2024 respectively, issued by the respondent No.

6 without furnishing a copy of the SI(, J enquiry report and further ordering recovery of amount of Rs. 3,82,6721 - from each petitioner vide Memo No. DBE/ OP/KEESARA/JAO(PAS)/D. No. dated Nil- 1 2-2025 issued by the respondent No. 8 as arbitraqr and illegal. 2. Heard Ms. Chekuri Jyotsna Devi, learned Counsel for the petitioners and Sri N. Sreedhar Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for Respondents. 3. Since all the writ petitions arise out of one and the same issue, they are being taken up together and disposed of by this common order. 4. The learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that while the petitioners were working as Artisan Grade-I[, they were placed under suspension vide Proceedings dated 30. 0L. 2O23 on the allegation that due to their negligence, theft of certain material had taken place. Later they were reinstated into service vide proceedings dated 02. 06. 2023. Departmental proceedings were initiated against the petitioners on 12. 05.

2023 on the ground that theft had taken place due to negligence and dereliction on their part. The contents of the charge Memo SK, J would disclose that a theft took place on 30. 01. 2O23, but it is not the case of the respondents that the petitioners are responsible for the alleged theft. Similar charges were also framed against the Assistant Engineer. 5. The learned Counsel for the petitioners further submits that the petitioners have submitted explanation denying the allegations made in the charge Memo and stated that the petitioners have been performing various duties a nd there is no security guard and requested to drop the proceedings. Apart from Charge Memo dated 12. 05. 2023, another charge Memo dated OS. l2. 2O2g was issrled by the respondent No. 5 with the similar allegatiorrs. Later enquiry was restricted only to the Charge Memo clated 12. O5. 2023.

After conducting enquiry, punishment of stoppage of two (2) annual grade increments with cunrulative effect lvas imposed on each petitioner vide Proceedings dated 24. 02. 2024 issued by the respondent No. 6. Eleing aggrieved by the same, the petitioners have filed appeals on 20. 05. 2024 before the respondent No. 3 and the same are still pending. Howerrer, the respondents \ SK, J are taking steps to recover the amounts from the petitioners with effect from 01. 0L. 2026' 6. The learned counsel for the petitioners further straight away, without submits that the respondents furnishing the coPY of enquiry report, imPosed of punishment, which is gross violation of PrinciPles No. S justice. During pendency of appeals, the respondent 1 2-2025 for recovery of amount of issued a Memo dated Nil- A proceedings Rs. 3,82,6721-from each petitioner. common by the of recovery was issued respond. ent No. 8, where the narnes of petitioners are figured in the table contained therein.

Being aggrieved by the saIne, these writ petitions are filed and. requested. to allow the writ petitions by setting aside the imPunged orders' 7. The learned standing counsel for the respondents basing on the counter submits that while the petitioners were working as Artisans Grade-II Operators in Yadgarpally Sub-station, they were placed under suspension on 30. 0 t. 2o23 due to negligence and dereliction of their SK, J duties resulting in theft of certain material from the said Sub-station. Thereafter, a charge Memo was issued to the petitioners on 12. 05. 2023 and an Enquiry Officer was appointe<l to conduct enquiry. Pending the said enquiry, the petitirners were reinstated into service on 02. 06 . 2023. During the course of enquiry, the charges levered against the petitioners were proved and in view of the same the competer. t authority i. e. , the respondent No. 6-Chief General Ivlanager has imposed punishment of stoppage of t';vo annual grade increments with.

cumulative effect on the petitione. s vide Memo No. cGM /op lMedchal Zone/DEgllAAO/JAO/Adm. /D. No. 3168, 3170 and 3169 /20:23 dated 24. 02. 2024 respectively due to negligence on the part of the petitioners. 8. The learned Standing counsel for the respond. ents further submits that petitioners preferred appeals to the Director (HRD), TGSPDCL and the said appeals have not yet been Laken up for hearing. For the purpose of recovery of loss ca. used to the respondent-company in view of theft of materjal from the Sub-station due to dereliction, the I I SK, J Chief Engineer (O & M) has appointed a Committee of Four Senior Members vide Memo dated 22. 10. 2024 to ascertain the amount to be recovered due to theft from the Sub-station and the said committee has submitted a report to take stringent action against the petitioners for the lapses in discharging their duties and also for recovery of cost of the stolen material of Rs. 19,13,359/- from the concerned i. e.

41o/o from the Assistant Engineer and 2Oo/o each of the petitioners herein. As the enquiry was already conducted and decided to recover the loss from the concerned, no further notice is required to be issued to the petitioners, in as much as the petitioners are also responsible for the loss caused to the respondent-company. Moreover, having filed appeals before the appellate authority, the petitioners cannot initiate parallel proceedings by way of filing the instant writ petitions questioning the very same proceedings and there are no merits and requested to dismiss all the writ petitions. g. After hearing both sides and on perusing the record, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioners are questioning the impugned order for stopping of two i. SK, J increments with cumulative effect dated 24. O2. 2024 passed b'f the respondent N o. 6 and also the proceedings for recov,-'ry of amounts dated nil. l2. 2o25 issued by the respondent No. 8.

Once the petitioners have filed appeals aggrieved by the said orders before the appellate authority, the petitioners cannot challenge the said proceedings in the instant writ petitions. The respondents without waiting for disposal of those appeals, now constituted a Committee for fixing the responsibility, there was no mention about the reco! 'ery of amounts in the punishment orders dated 24. 02. 20'. 24, ir:. spite of that issued impugned proceedings dated N:il. 12. 2025 for recovery of amounts from the petitioners to a tune of Rs. 3,82,6721- each, which is arbitrary and illegal. After disposal of the appeals, if the petitioners are found to be responsible, the respondent authoritir:s are at liberty to take steps for recovery of the amounts by following due procedure of law. 10. In view of the same, recovery orders passed by the respondent authorities pending disposal of the appeals filed by r:he petitioners before the appetlate authority are I liable to be set aside. t ,# l!

t@ \i a'r B \ SK, J \ 'l \ \ \ \ \ 11. [n view of the above findings, these writ Petitions are disposed of by setting aside the impugned Memo No. DEE/OP/KEESARA/JAO(pAS)/D. No. dated nil. 12. 2025 issued by the respondent No. g and the respondent No. 3 is further directed to dispose of the appeals fited by the petitioners dated 2o. os. 2o24, as expeditiously as possible. If the respondents wants to take any action against the petitioners, they are at liberty to do so by following due procedure as per law, after diSposal of the appeals filed by the petitioners dated 20. O5. 2024. No order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending in these writ petitions, shall stand closed. -1? \ SD/- C. DEEPIKA ASSISTAT. IT REGISTRAR 6 //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To 1. Southern Power Distribution, compaqy. of Telangana Limited' Represented by its Chairman ana-t,t-anrgi,ig bit"Ctbi fifint Comp-ound, Hyderabad' T'G' 2.

The Chairman and Managing Director, Southern P^ower Distribution Company L' ;iTd""g""" r-to. rtt. t Co"mpouno, Hyderabad' T'G' 3. The Director, HRD TGSPDCL, Corporate office, Mint compound, Hyderabad, T. G. 4. The Chief General Manager (HRD), TGSPDCL, Corporate Office' Mint -' Compound, HYderabad, T. G. CorPorat'e \ & M) Rural Zone, TGSPDCL, 5. The Chief General Manager, (O . Office, Mint ComPound, HYderabact 6. The Chief General Manager, Operation TGSPDCL, Medchal Zonal, Hyderabad. 7. The {iuperintending Engineer, Operation, TGSPDCL, Habsiguda, Hyderabad. / / 8. The Divisional Engineer Elecl, Operation, Keesara, TGSPDCL, Keesara, Habsiguda Circle. 9. State of Telangana, Represented by its Principal Secretary, Energy Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad, T. G. 10. One rlC to Ms. CHEKURI JYOTSNA DEVI Advocate [OPUC] 11. One tlC to SRI N. SREEDHAR REDDY, S. C. for TGSPDCL [OPUC] 12. Two CCs to GP for Energy, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad [OUT] 13.

Two tlD Copies MP HIGH COURT ATED:1210212026 , 8t$2m r) +. ,I, c tY/ N =i W. P. Nos. 40520 40521 ,) and 40522 ot 2025 DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITIONS TI rlOUT COSTS a"t fl"

Source: High Court for State of Telangana. Dataset: Dattam Labs. CC BY 4.0. Text extracted automatically; compare with the source PDF for layout and accuracy.