THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI
AND
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO
Writ Appeal No.144 of 2014
JUDGMENT : (Per Hon'ble Sri Justice Abhinand Kumar Shavili)
Aggrieved by the order dated 14.08.2013 passed
in W.P.No. 6507 of 2004 by the learned Single Judge,
the present writ petition has been filed.
2. Heard Mr. N. Vasudev Reddy, learned Standing
Counsel for the appellant and Mr. A.K. Jayaprakash
Rao, learned counsel for the respondents.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that that the respondent No.1 was appointed as a 'Conductor' on 11.07.1980 and while he was conducting the bus on 15.07.2000, a surprise cheque was conducted and it was noticed that the respondent No.1 was indulged in cash and ticket irregularities. The disciplinary authorities has initiated the disciplinary proceedings and after conducting a detailed enquiry and for the proven misconduct in the domestic enquiry, the disciplinary authority has ::2:: AKS,J & RRN,J wa_144_2014 imposed a punishment of removal from the service on the respondent No.1 vide proceedings dated 07.02.2001. Aggrieved by the orders of removal from the services, the 1st respondent has approached the Industrial Tribunal (for short, 'the Tribunal') cum Labour Court by filing I.D.No.145 of 2001 under Section 2-A(2) of Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 and the Tribunal was pleased to dismiss the I.D vide orders dated 12.11.2003 ; aggrieved by the said orders of the Tribunal the 1st respondent has approached this Court by filing W.P.No.6507 of 2004 and the learned Single Judge of this Court was pleased to set aside the orders of removal and directed the appellant to reinstate the respondent No.1 into service vide orders dated 14.08.2013 without appreciating any of the contentions raised by the appellant. Learned counsel for the appellant had further contended that aggrieved by the said orders of the learned Single Judge, the present Writ Appeal is filed and this Court was pleased to grant the stay of the learned Single Judge passed on 07.02.2014 subject to the condition that the appellant ::3:: AKS,J & RRN,J wa_144_2014 deposits 50% of the back wages; upon such deposit by the appellant, the respondent No.1 was permitted to withdraw the same.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant had further contended that the charge levelled against the respondent No.1 was proved in the domestic enquiry and the learned Single Judge inspite of the charge being proved in the domestic enquiry was pleased to set aside the orders of removal without appreciating any of the contentions raised by the appellant. The learned Single Judge never gave any findings as to how the charge was not proved in the domestic enquiry except stating that there was some discrepancy in the charge memo and on that ground, the learned Single Judge has set aside the orders of removal and the respondent No.1 was out of employment from 2001 till his retirement and he has also retired from services on 30.06.2011 and the learned Single Judge held that the 1st respondent has already retired from services and directed the appellant to reinstate the respondent No.1 ::4:: AKS,J & RRN,J wa_144_2014 into service. Once the respondent No.1 has attained the age of superannuation, the question of reinstatement of the respondent No.1 would not arise; therefore, appropriate orders be passed in the Writ Appeal by denying any monitory benefits till the age of superannuation of the respondent No.1. Admittedly, the respondent has not worked from the date of removal till his age of superannuation.
5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the 1st respondent had contended that appropriate orders be passed in the Writ Appeal by denying all the monitory benefits to the respondent No.1. However, the terminal benefits may be paid by taking into account that the respondent No.1 has served with the appellant upto the age of his retirement on 30.06.2011.
6. This Court, having considered the rival submissions made by the parties, is of the considered view that the learned Single Judge has directed the appellant to reinstate the respondent No.1 into service, even though the respondent No.1 has attained the age ::5:: AKS,J & RRN,J wa_144_2014 of superannuation on 30.06.2011. The question of directing the appellant to reinstate the respondent No.1 after his retirement would not arise; however, since the respondent No.1 has not worked from the date of removal till his age of superannuation, the respondent No.1 would not be entitled for any monitory benefits. However, the appellant shall pay the retirement benefits by treating that the respondent No.1 was in service upto his date of retirement and settle all consequential benefits as expeditiously as possible.
7. With these observations, Writ Appeal is disposed of by granting continuity of service and all attendant/terminal benefits to the respondent No.1 except monitory benefits. However, the back wages which were already paid in pursuance to the Interlocutory orders passed by this Court shall not be recovered. No costs.
::6:: AKS,J & RRN,J
wa_144_2014
8. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending if any in this Writ Petition, shall stand closed.
__________________________________ ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI, J ______________________________________ NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO, J Date : 06.12.2022 prat