CHAIRMAN, A.P. STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD AND ORS. versus M. KURMI NAIDU

Citation: [2006] SUPP. 6 S.C.R. 34 · Decided: 13-09-2006 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: H.K. SEMA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
CHAIRMAN, A.P. STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD AND ORS. 
v. 
M. KURMI NAIDU 
SEPTEMBER 13, 2006 
B 
[H.K. SEMA AND P.K. BALASUBRAMANYAN, JJ.] 
Service law: 
C 
Departmental appeal-Deprivation-Punishment to delinquent 
employee not given by Disciplinary Authority but by Appellate Authority--
Mercy petition thereagainst by the employee treated as appeal and dismissed-
Dismissal of appeal not assailed-Writ petition on the ground that employee 
was deprived of forum of appeal-The claim of employee denied by Single 
Judge as well as Division Bench of High Court-In appeal, held: Employee 
D was not deprived of right to appeal as the mercy petition was treated as 
appeal petilion-A.P.S.E. Board Employees Discipline Appeal Regulations, 
/99J-Regulation 7(e). 
Charge memo was issued against the respondent-employee. On report 
E of the Enquiry Officer holding that the charge was proved against him, 
Chairman of the Board (the appellate authority) inflicted the punishment of 
compulsory retirement from service. The respondent then filed mercy petition, 
which was treated as an appeal and the same was rejected by the Board. 
Respondent filed Writ Petition alleging that he was deprived of right to 
F appeal as Disciplinary Authority being competent to impose punishment did 
not exercise its right and the same was exercised by the Chairman (Appellate 
Authority) thereby depriving forum of appeal before the Chairman. Single 
Jude dismissed the petition of the respondent. Writ appeal thereagainst was 
also dismissed by Division Bench of High Court. Hence the present appeal. 
G 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: I. There i~ no dispute that the Member Secretary of the Board 
was the disciplinary authority. Show cause notice was issued under the 
signature of the Member Secretary, the disciplinary authority. However, the 
H penalty of compulsory retirement from service was inflicted by the Chairman 
34 
.. 
CHAIRMAN, A.P. STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD v. M. KURMI NAIDU[H.K. SEMA, J.] 35 
of the Board, who is the Appellate Authority. Both the Single Judge and the A 
Division Bench have failed to notice that despite the aforesaid facts, the 
respondent was not deprived of the right of appeal An appeal lay to the Board. 
Ultimately, the respondent has filed before the Board a detailed petition styled 
as mercy petition. Though it was styled as mercy petition, the Board has 
treated the petition as an appeal petition. The Board after considering the B 
appeal rejected the same. The order passed by the Board rejecting the appeal 
of the respondent has not been assailed either before the Single Judge or 
before the Division Bench. Uhas attained finality. Therefore, it cannot be 
said that the appellant was deprived of the remedy of appeal, which caused 
prejudice to him. 138-G; 39-Dl 
2. It cannot be said that since the imposition of compulsory retirement 
was inflicted by the Chairman, the case of the respondent has been prejudiced 
as the order passed by the Chairman was not subjected to concurrence. All 
the grievances were considered by the Board, and were rejected. Hence, in 
c 
the given facts of this case, no prejudice whatsoever has been caused to the 
respondent. The respondent has not taken grievances of the Board's order of D 
dismissal of appeal. This would show that he was satisfied with the appellate 
order of the Board. 139-F-Hl 
Surjit Ghosh v. Chairman and Managing Director, United Commercial 
Bank, [1995] 2 SCC 474 and Balbir Chand v. Food Corporation of India 
Ltd, 11997) 3 sec 371, referred to. 
E 
• ,ctVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 3632 of2003. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 8.10.2001 of the High Court of 
Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in W.A. No. 1507/200 I. 
G. Umapathy and Rakesh K. Sharma for the Appellants. 
L.N. Rao, R. Santhann Krishnan, K. RadhaRani, P. Vijay Kumar and D. 
Mahesh Babu for the Respondent. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
H.K. SEMA, J. l.A.No.3 for substituting the name of Transmission 
·Corporation of Andhra Pradesh limited (APTRANSCO) in place of Andhra 
Pradesh State Electricity Board (APSEB) is allowed. The appellants shall now 
F 
G 
H 
36 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS {20061 SUPP. 6 S.C.R. 
· A be read as Chairman. Transmission Corporation of Andhra Pradesh Limited 
(APTRANSCO). 
The challenge in this appeal is to the order dated 8.10.200 I passed by 
the Division Bench in Writ Appeal No.1507 of 200 I affirming the order dated 
27.4.200 I passed by the learned Single Judge in
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.