THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE UJJAL BHUYAN
AND
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.BHASKAR REDDY
WRIT APPEAL No.440 of 2019
JUDGMENT: (Per the Hon'ble the Chief Justice Ujjal Bhuyan)
Heard Mr. A.Ravi Babu, learned counsel for the
appellants and Mr. P.Govinda Rajulu, learned counsel for the
respondent.
2. This appeal is directed against the order dated 01.11.2018 passed by the learned Single Judge allowing W.P.No.3545 of 2007.
3. The related writ petition was filed by the respondent assailing the legality and validity of the order dated 27.06.2005 passed by the 3rd appellant.
4. It may be mentioned that respondent was a Conductor in the establishment of the 3rd appellant. A charge sheet dated 21.02.2004 was issued against the respondent alleging that while he was discharging his duties on 07.02.2004, he had indulged in cash and ticket irregularities, 2 HCJ & CVBRJ W.A.No.440 of 2019 which was a misconduct. Thereafter, a departmental inquiry was conducted, following which respondent was removed from service vide order dated 06.08.2004.
5. Departmental appeal filed by the respondent against the order of penalty was dismissed. This was followed by a revision petition filed by the respondent before the 3rd appellant. By the order dated 27.06.2005, 3rd appellant set aside the order of removal of the respondent. However, penalty of denial of one year annual increment with cumulative effect was passed.
6. Aggrieved by the same, the related writ petition came to be filed. By the order under appeal, learned Single Judge considered the rival submissions whereafter a view was taken that the revisional authority ought to have imposed a punishment of reduction of pay by one increment for a period of one year without cumulative effect instead of making the same with cumulative effect. Accordingly, learned Single Judge modified the punishment clarifying that the same 3 HCJ & CVBRJ W.A.No.440 of 2019 would be without any monetary benefit. It is this order which is under impugnment in the present appeal.
7. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that no reasons were assigned by the learned Single Judge for modification of the penalty. The revisional authority had duly considered all the relevant factors and thereafter had imposed the punishment which was proportionate to the gravity of the offence. Learned Single Judge was not justified in interfering with the same.
7.1. Learned counsel for the respondent however supports the order passed by the learned Single Judge.
8. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and on due consideration, we find that an identical issue has been dealt with by this bench in Writ Appeal No.474 of 2019 decided on 01.09.2022. It has been held as follows:
"11. Reverting back to the facts of the present case, we find that the order dated 17.05.1997 is not a speaking order.
Without assigning any reasons, disciplinary authority imposed the major penalty on the respondent. The appellate authority 4 HCJ & CVBRJ W.A.No.440 of 2019 also merely rejected the appeal. While the disciplinary authority was silent as regards holding of any enquiry, the appellate authority on its own recorded that a detailed enquiry was conducted by Sri Ganesh Prasad, Senior Traffic Inspector of SRCL Depot, wherein the charges leveled against the respondent were held proved. If this is the position, then the disciplinary authority ought to have referred to and discussed about the report submitted by the Enquiry Officer, after serving a copy of the same to the respondent and calling for his representation.
12. From the above, it is evident that the due procedure was not followed before imposing the major penalty on the respondent. As a matter of fact, such imposition of penalty without following the due process, would warrant setting aside of the same in its entirety. However, as the respondent has not questioned the modified punishment, we would not like to enter into this aspect of the matter.
13. Nonetheless, having regard to the above, we feel that learned Single Judge was justified in modifying the punishment imposed on the respondent from one having cumulative effect to that of 'without cumulative effect and without monitory benefit'. Therefore, no interference is called for.
5 HCJ & CVBRJ
W.A.No.440 of 2019
14. Consequently, the Writ Appeal is dismissed. No costs."
9. Following the aforesaid order, we decline to interfere with the order passed by the learned Single Judge.
10. Consequently, the Writ Appeal is dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.
11. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, in this Writ Appeal, shall stand closed.
__________________________ UJJAL BHUYAN, CJ ___________________________ C.V.BHASKAR REDDY, J Date: 17.10.2022 KL