THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI
AND
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SARATH
Writ Petition No.12125 of 2006
ORDER : (Per Hon'ble Sri Justice K.Sarath)
1. This writ petition is filed seeking Writ of Certiorari to
call for the records relating to the order dated 07.06.2005 in
O.A.No.1151 of 2002 on the file of the Central Administrative
Tribunal, Hyderabad (for brevity 'the Tribunal'), wherein the
claim of the petitioner was rejected on the ground that the
punishment awarded was not shockingly high and
disproportionate to the offence committed by the petitioner
and therefore, the Tribunal does not interfere with the
exercise of the power of the authorities in awarding the
punishment, which is illegal and arbitrary, without
appreciating the material on record and declare the action of
the respondents in imposing the discriminatory punishment
and consequently quash and set aside the same and to direct the respondents to reinstate the petitioner into service with all consequential benefits and pass such other order or orders as this Court deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.
2 AKS,J & SK,J
W.P.No.12125 of 2006
Dt.____.10.2022
2. Heard Sri.B.Anurag for Smt.K.Udaya Sri counsel for the petitioner, Incharge Assistant Solicitor General and Sri.A.Sameer Kumar Reddy for the respondents.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner was appointed as Postal Assistant in the year, 1959. While he was working in Postal Stores Department, Hyderabad in the year, 1983 the petitioner was served charge sheet containing two (2) charges for shortage of papers of 746.49 reams and in December, 1983 and shortage of paper (140 reams) noticed at the time of takeover i.e., verification of stock in June/July, 1983.
4. After conclusion of the inquiry he was dismissed from the service on 10.12.1987. Against the said orders, he filed Appeal and Revision and both were rejected. Against the said orders he filed O.A.No.605 of 1991 of Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad bench and the Tribunal set aside the dismissal order on the ground that the copy of the charge sheet was not furnished to the petitioner.
5. Thereafter, the petitioner was again dismissed from service, against the said orders he filed Appeal and 3 AKS,J & SK,J W.P.No.12125 of 2006 Dt.____.10.2022 Revision and both were dismissed. Against the said orders, the petitioner approached the Tribunal and filed O.A.No.1354 of 1994 and the Tribunal allowed the said O.A. on 25.09.1997 and set aside the dismissal order and remanded back to the Appellate authority to consider for imposing a lesser punishment as was imposed on the co-employee, who has also been charged along with the petitioner. The Appellate authority again confirmed the orders of dismissal, which was challenged by the petitioner by filing O.A.No.47 of 2000, the same was also once again remanded to the authority to consider the allegations of discrimination as also to consider whether the charge against the petitioner and the Assistant Manager were identical and to consider the question of punishment in the light of findings of those aspects. Disciplinary Authority once again ordered dismissal on 05.10.2001 and the same was questioned in O.A.No.1151 of 2002.
6. The Tribunal partly allowed the O.A.No.1151 of 2002 on 07.06.2005 and the same is impugned before this Court in the present Writ Petition.
4 AKS,J & SK,J
W.P.No.12125 of 2006
Dt.____.10.2022
7. The counsel for the petitioner contended that the Tribunal without taking into consideration of the earlier orders passed in the same subject matter directed the respondents to pay the subsistence allowance from 26.06.1992 to 05.10.2001 with interest @ 6% but not given any findings about the discrimination treated by the respondents to the petitioner. The counsel for the petitioner relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in Naresh Chandra Bhardwaj vs Bank of India and others1, and judgment of this Hon'ble Court in W.P.No.11237 of 2012 dated 01.08.2022 and submitted that in case of parity in punishment, the Court may interfere and to modify the punishment of removal to compulsory retirement. The learned counsel for the petitioner further contended that the orders passed by the Tribunal in O.A.No.1151 of 2002, dated 07.06.2005 are without considering the facts of the case and the Tribunal without interfering with the impugned dismissal order, partly allowed the O.A and the same is liable to be set aside with a direction to treat the petitioner on par with the similarly situated 1 (2019) 15 Supreme Court Cases 786 5 AKS,J & SK,J W.P.No.12125 of 2006 Dt.____.10.2022 person as the punishment of dismissal is shockingly disproportionate and be modified to that of compulsory retirement as it was done in respect of a co-employee, who was also involved in the same incident.
8. The learned counsel for the respondents contended that the Tribunal has rightly given a finding that there is no reason or justification to interfere with the punishment of dismissal awarded by the disciplinary authority vide orders dated 05.10.2001 and the Writ Petition is liable to be dismissed.
9. This Court having considered the rival submissions made by the counsel for both the parties is of the considered view that the Tribunal without taking into account of the earlier orders passed in O.A.No.605 of 1991, dated 01.01.1992 and orders in O.A.No.47 of 2000, dated 10.07.2001 passed the present impugned order. The specific plea of the petitioner is that Sri.Y.Balram, the co-accused of the same offence was awarded with lesser punishment of compulsory retirement and the petitioner was punished with penalty of dismissal and the co-employee Sri.Anjaneyulu was 6 AKS,J & SK,J W.P.No.12125 of 2006 Dt.____.10.2022 fully exonerated from the charges of shortage of papers and the punishment of dismissal from the service imposed on the petitioner is shocking and highly disproportionate and the Tribunal ought to have at least modified the punishment of dismissal to that of compulsory retirement as it was done in the case of co-accused i.e. Y.Balaram. The Supreme Court in Naresh Chandra Bhardwaj (1 supra), has held as under:
"......the domain of the courts on the issue of quantum of punishment is very limited. It is the disciplinary authority or the appellate authority, which decides the nature of punishment keeping in mind the seriousness of the misconduct committed. This would not imply that if the punishment is so disproportionate that it shocks the conscience of the court the courts are denuded of the authority to interfere with the same.
Hence, this Court is of the considered view by following the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Naresh Chandra Bhardwaj (1 supra) that the punishment of dismissal as imposed by the respondents on the petitioner deserves to be modified to that of compulsory retirement as it was done in the case of Sri Y.Balaram because the disciplinary authority must consider the parity of punishments while imposing on the employees and the disciplinary authority cannot impose the lesser punishment of compulsory retirement on 7 AKS,J & SK,J W.P.No.12125 of 2006 Dt.____.10.2022 Sri Y.Balaram while imposing a major punishment of dismissal on the petitioner for the same set of allegations levelled against both of them. Therefore, for the reasons stated above, this Court is of the considered view that the punishment as imposed by the disciplinary authority be modified to that of compulsory retirement as it was done in the case of Sri Y.Balaram.
10. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents to modify the punishment from dismissal of service imposed on the petitioner to that of compulsory retirement. No costs.
11. Miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed.
__________________________________ ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI, J _______________ K.SARATH, J Date : _____.10.2022.
Krl.