HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI
AND
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K. SARATH
W.P.No.6482 of 2010
ORDER:(Per Hon'ble Sri Justice Abhinand Kumar Shavili)
This Writ Petition is filed aggrieved by the orders of the
A.P. Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad (for brevity 'the
Tribunal') passed in O.A.No.3809 of 2007 dt.02-11-2009.
2. Heard the learned Government Pleader for
Home appearing for the petitioners and Sri Chakravarthy
P.V.S.K., learned counsel for the 1st respondent.
3. It has been contended by the petitioners that the 1st respondent was working as Head Constable and he was involved in an offence under Section 498-A IPC and he was tried by the competent Criminal Court and was convicted for the said offence in S.C.No.869 of 2000 vide judgment dt.22-07-2004 and the 1st respondent preferred Crl.A.No.309 of 2004 before the IX Additional Sessions Judge, Guntur, and the same was allowed AKS,J & SK,J 2 W.P.No.6482 of 2010 vide orders dt.23-01-2006 and he was acquitted of the said criminal charge.
4. Learned Government Pleader for Home appearing for the petitioners has contended that the departmental proceedings were also initiated against the 1st respondent and in the enquiry, the enquiry officer held that the charge is not proved. Thereafter, the Superintendent of Police, Khammam has disagreed with the findings of the enquiry officer's report and gave a dissent note to the 1st respondent and the 1st respondent has submitted his explanation. Being not satisfied with the said explanation, the petitioners vide orders dt.20-09-2006 have imposed a punishment of postponement of one increment with effect on future increments and pension. Aggrieved by the said orders of punishment, the 1st respondent has preferred appeal and the appellate authority has also confirmed the orders of the disciplinary authority vide orders dt.26-11-2006. Learned counsel for the petitioners has contended that aggrieved by the orders of imposition, the 1st respondent has filed O.A.No.3809 of 2007 before the Tribunal and the Tribunal was pleased to allow the said AKS,J & SK,J 3 W.P.No.6482 of 2010 O.A. by modifying the punishment of postponement of one increment with effect on future increment and pension to that of postponement of one increment for a period of one year without cumulative effect and besides that directed the petitioners to treat the suspension period i.e. from 18-03-2004 to 02-03-2005 as 'spent on duty' without appreciating any of the contentions raised by the petitioners.
5. Learned Government Pleader for Home appearing for the petitioners had further contended that the Tribunal gave a specific finding that the misconduct which is proved in the domestic enquiry was confirmed, however, interfered with the punishment only on the ground of proportionality. Learned counsel for the petitioners had contended that if the punishment is interfered based on disproportionate punishment, the Tribunal ought to have remanded the matter back to the petitioners so as to enable the petitioners to impose any other commensurate punishment on the 1st respondent. But the Tribunal acceded in further directing that the suspension period is treated as 'spent on AKS,J & SK,J 4 W.P.No.6482 of 2010 duty'. Therefore, the orders of the Tribunal are contrary to the law and the same are liable to be set aside.
6. Learned counsel for the 1st respondent had contended that the enquiry officer has held that the charge is not proved in the domestic enquiry and the disciplinary authority has given dissent note and has not even considered the explanation submitted by the 1st respondent. Therefore, the Tribunal was justified in interfering with the orders of punishment. Therefore, there are no merits in the Writ Petition and the same is liable to be dismissed.
7. This Court having considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for both the parties is of the considered view that the Tribunal has come to the conclusion that the punishment of postponement of one increment with cumulative effect is shockingly disproportionate and in that case, the Tribunal ought to have remanded the matter back to the appellate authority to impose any other punishment. Therefore, the Tribunal was not justified in modifying the punishment and it AKS,J & SK,J 5 W.P.No.6482 of 2010 could not have further directed that the suspension period should be treated as 'spent on duty'.
8. Therefore, the orders of the Tribunal are liable to be set aside and accordingly they are set aside and the matter is remanded back to the petitioners so as to enable the appellate authority to consider the case of the 1st respondent. In respect of suspension period is concerned, the petitioners shall follow the Rule 54 (b) of the Fundamental Rules and pass appropriate orders after giving sufficient opportunity to the 1st respondent.
9. With these observations, the Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs.
10. As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.
______________________________ ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI, J _____________________________ K. SARATH, J Dt.07.09.2022 kvr