The Northern Power Distribution ... vs Z. Somaiah

Citation : 2021 Latest Caselaw 3768 Tel
Judgement Date : 25 November, 2021

Telangana High Court
The Northern Power Distribution ... vs Z. Somaiah on 25 November, 2021
Bench: Satish Chandra Sharma, A.Rajasheker Reddy
 THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA
                                   AND
       THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.RAJASHEKER REDDY



                 WRIT APPEAL No.722 of 2019


JUDGMENT:   (Per the Hon'ble the Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma)




     The present writ appeal is arising out of the order

dated 31.12.2018 passed by the learned Single Judge in

W.P.No.22539 of 2009.

     The facts of the case reveal that the respondent

No.1 before this Court, Z. Somaiah, now represented through legal heirs in the writ appeal, was granted compassionate appointment in the year 2003 on the post of Attender, as his father expired on 07.11.2002. While he was serving as Attender, a show cause notice was issued on the ground that he has suppressed his correct date of birth for obtaining appointment on compassionate grounds. A charge sheet was also issued to him. The enquiry officer thereafter conducted an enquiry and arrived at a conclusion that the misconduct is proved and in those circumstances, an order was passed on 30.09.2009 dismissing him from service. The order dated 30.09.2009 was subjected to judicial scrutiny and the learned Single Judge, by taking into account the evidence on record and the documents produced by the employer 2 as well as the employee, has allowed the writ petition directing reinstatement of the respondent No.1 with all consequential benefits. The writ appeal was preferred and during the pendency of the writ appeal, Z.Somaiah expired in the year 2019. The order was passed by the learned Single Judge on 31.12.2018. Meaning thereby, the death has taken place when the judgment was already in existence directing his reinstatement into service.

At this juncture, this Court cannot affirm the order of dismissal from service, as the employee is no more. The writ appeal was preferred with a delay and therefore, in the considered opinion of this Court, as no punishment can be inflicted upon the employee who is no more, the question of interference with the order passed by the learned Single Judge does not arise.

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 25.11.2021 vs