THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA
AND
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.RAJASHEKER REDDY
WRIT APPEAL No.434 of 2019
JUDGMENT: (Per the Hon'ble the Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma)
The present writ appeal is arising out of the order
dated 16.11.2018 passed by the learned Single Judge in
W.P.No.23442 of 2002.
The facts of the case reveal that the respondent was
absent for 62 days and in those circumstances, a charge sheet was issued on 26.09.1994 for being unauthorisedly absent. He submitted a reply and a final order was passed inflicting a punishment of removal on 05.04.1995. The respondent has thereafter preferred an appeal and the appellate authority by an order dated 30.06.1995 directed reinstatement into service and reduced his basic pay to the minimum of the time scale for a period of two years with cumulative effect. He preferred a review and the review petition was rejected by an order dated 26.06.1996. Thereafter, he has preferred the writ petition and the learned Single Judge has moderated the penalty to that of reduction of pay by two incremental stages for a period of two years without cumulative effect.
2
Learned counsel for the appellants has argued before this Court that there was no irregularity committed in the disciplinary proceedings and principles of natural justice and fair play were observed and therefore, there was no occasion for the learned Single Judge to interfere with the punishment order.
On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent has argued before this Court that for the unauthorised absence, the punishment shockingly disproportionate to the guilt of the respondent was inflicted. It is not a case of embezzlement or misappropriation and therefore, the learned Single Judge was justified in passing the impugned order.
This Court has carefully gone though the order of punishment and the order passed by the learned Single Judge. Undisputedly, the respondent was unauthorisedly absent for so many days. The employer has initially passed an order of removal. However, later on, the appellate authority has modified the same. In the considered opinion of this Court, as the punishment was certainly disproportionate to the guilt of the employee, this Court does not find any reason to interfere with the order passed by the learned Single Judge. The admission is declined.
3
The writ appeal is accordingly dismissed. The miscellaneous applications pending in this appeal, if any, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.
___________________________ SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA, CJ ___________________________ A.RAJASHEKER REDDY, J 22.11.2021 vs