THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA
AND
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.RAJASHEKER REDDY
WRIT APPEAL No.601 of 2019
JUDGMENT: (Per the Hon'ble the Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma)
The present writ appeal is arising out of the order
dated 07.09.2017 passed by the learned Single Judge in
W.P.No.14905 of 2006.
The facts of the case reveal that the appellant was
charge sheeted on account of cash and ticket
irregularities. A charge memo was issued on 20.05.1998
and after conducting a detailed enquiry, he was removed
from service on 11.02.1999. An appeal was preferred
and the same was dismissed on 23.10.1999. Thereafter,
a review petition was preferred and that was also
dismissed on 11.08.2000. The appellant took shelter of
the Industrial Tribunal - cum - Labour Court and the
Labour Court passed an award on 24.02.2003 dismissing
the petition preferred by the appellant. The appellant
has thereafter preferred a writ petition before this Court
and the learned Single Judge has taken a lenient view in
the matter by reinstating the appellant into service
without back wages and without continuity of service
with no attendant benefits. The learned Single has
interfered with the quantum of punishment by simply
2
observing that a lenient view should have been taken in
the matter. Now the appellant wants back wages and
continuity of service. The order passed by the learned
Single Judge in paragraphs 6 to 8 reads as under:-
"6. In CHAIRMAN-CUM-MANAGING DIRECTOR,
referred supra ((2009) 15 SCC 620), the delinquent
was charged for the alleged misconduct of
unauthorized absence from duty for more than six
months and after enquiry, charges were proved and he
was removed from service, which was also confirmed
by the authorities concerned. The Apex Court
considered the aspect and directed that the delinquent
be reinstated forthwith without any back wages from
the date of the removal until reinstatement. While
arriving at such conclusion, the Apex Court held as
under:-
"So far as our legal system is concerned,
the doctrine is well settled. Even prior to CCSU,
this Court has held that if punishment imposed on
an employee by an employer is grossly excessive,
disproportionately high or unduly harsh, it cannot
claim immunity from judicial scrutiny, and it is
always open to a court to interfere with such
penalty in appropriate cases."
Following the decision of the Apex Court, the
punishment of removal from service imposed against
the petitioner cannot be said to be proportionate to the
gravity of the charges levelled against him. Therefore,
the Tribunal did not properly exercise the discretion
under Section 11-A of Industrial Disputes Act. In
such a case, a lenient view can be taken in the matter.
7. Considering the facts and circumstances of the
case, the respondents are directed to reinstate the
petitioner into service without any back wages and without continuity of service with no attendant benefits. The petitioner can be treated as fresh 3 appointee from the date of joining duty after reinstatement.
8. With the above direction, the Writ Petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this Writ Petition shall stand closed."
In the considered opinion of this Court in respect of cash and ticket irregularities the order of punishment of removal was certainly commensurate to the guilt of the appellant. However, the learned Single Judge has taken a compassionate view in the matter by directing reinstatement without back wages and without continuity of service as a fresh appointee. This Court does not find any reason to interfere with the order passed by the learned Single Judge.
The writ appeal is accordingly dismissed. The miscellaneous applications pending in this writ appeal, if any, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.
___________________________ SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA, CJ ___________________________ A.RAJASHEKER REDDY, J 24.11.2021 vs