Telangana High Court
P. Sabitha Devi, vs The Government Of Telangana, on 1 December, 2023
1
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE PULLA KARTHIK
WRIT PETITION No.16999 of 2014
This Writ Petition is filed challenging the proceedings in File
No.3032/SERP/HRHII/RR/2013, dated 18.01.2014 issued by the second
respondent by removing the petitioner from service as highly illegal,
arbitrary, unreasonable, discriminatory and in violation of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India and direct the respondents to reinstate her into service as Assistant Project Manager with all consequential benefits.
2. The case of the petitioner is that initially, she was appointed as a Mandal Resource Person 16.02.2003 under the control of third respondent. While she was working as Mandal Resource Person, she was selected as Training Committee Coordinator in the year 2004 and thereafter, she was appointed as an Assistant Project Manager in the year 2011 at Dharoor Mandal, Ranga Reddy District under the control of third respondent. The scheme i.e. SERP meant for elimination of Rural Poverty of poorest of the poor from the SCs and STs in the society, for which the State Government is running "Velugu Pathakam", which is running under the control of SERP (Society for Elimination of Rural Poverty). While, the petitioner was working as Assistant Branch Manager under the control of third respondent, on certain financial irregularities, the petitioner and another person, who is working as Community Co-ordinator were kept under suspension on 30.04.2013 by the third 2 respondent. For which, the petitioner had submitted her detailed explanation on 23.05.2013, wherein, it was categorically stated that an amount of Rs.8500/- and Rs.1000/- were sanctioned through cheque bearing Nos.381437 and 194220 and gave the details of expenditure. It is further stated in the explanation that no single pie was misused by the petitioner nor another, only in hurry manner without making any voucher and later on, the cheques were submitted before the Committee and the resolutions were passed on the said amounts. Further, it is stated that in the said incident, four individuals were involved and out of four, two of them are the petitioner and one Sri T.Bandaiah, who is working as Community Coordinator, Dharur and they were made responsible and placed under suspension. In the explanation submitted by the petitioner, she admitted that due to oversight and lack of experience, the said mistake was done. Though, the petitioner has submitted sanctioned amount by way of a Debit Voucher, dated 14.12.2012, along with the expenditure receipts and the payment receipts, for which, the record is available and submitted before the third respondent. But, none of the record was considered by the third respondent. Finally, an enquiry was conducted behind back of the petitioner and straightaway, the report was submitted to the second respondent. Basing on the same, the second respondent issued the proceedings in File No.3032/SERP/HRII/RR/2013, dated 18.01.2014, removed the petitioner from service. Hence, the present writ petition. 3
3. Heard Sri C.Raja Sekhar Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Sri I.V.Siddhivardhana, learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 and 3 and learned Government Pleader for respondent No.1.
4. It has been contended by learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that on receipt of the suspension order along with charge memo dated 30.04.2013, the petitioner has submitted her detailed explanation stating that four persons were involved in the issue and out of four, herself and one Mr.Bandaiah were made responsible and kept them under suspension and she also admitted the fact that due to oversight, the mistake was done and there is no malafide intention on her to misuse the money. But, the respondents without considering the explanation submitted by the petitioner conducted enquiry behind her back and straightaway, removed her from service arbitrarily. It is further contended that insofar as Mr.Bandaiah is concerned, the explanation submitted by him on the same issue was considered and he was reinstated into service on 13.09.2013 and he was allotted to Vikarabad Mandal as Community Coordinator (PWT) vide proceedings dated 17.10.2013 issued by the third respondent, which amounts to clear discrimination between the petitioner and another person, who are equally responsible for the issue. Therefore, the punishment of removal from service cannot be sustained on the ground of discrimination. In support of his contention, he has placed reliance on the order passed by this Court in WP.No.14417 of 2021, dated 31.03.2023. 4
5. Per contra, learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondent Nos.2 and 3 submits that on the reports given by District Micro Groups (Head Quarters), District Micro Groups (Vikarabad) and Area Coordinator, Vikarabad dated 27.04.2013 and 29.04.2013 about the financial irregularities done by the petitioner with a malafide intention, she was placed under suspension on 30.04.2013 and a detailed enquiry was ordered. It is further contended that the cheques prepared for Rs.720/-, Rs.1000/- and overwritten/corrected cheques for Rs.8500/- were issued neither by passing any resolutions of the Mandal Mahila Samakhya nor production of any bills/vouchers for the expenditure incurred in the Mandal Mahila Samakhya, Dharur. Further, it was revealed in the enquiry report that the Community Co-ordinator Mr.Bandaiah had overwritten/corrected the cheques at the instance of the petitioner and she kept the blank cheques with the signatures of the Mandal Samakhya Office Bearers of Dharur Mandal with a malafide intention to misappropriate the funds. It is further contended that as per the detailed enquiry report of the Additional Project Director-II, there was clear evidence against the petitioner and also T.Bandaiah, the Community Coordinator, who have written the cheques bearing Nos.381437 and 194220 for amount of Rs.8500/- and Rs.1000/- respectively and had withdrawn the cash without supporting bills/vouchers by misleading the Mandal Samakhya Office Bearers and said Bandaiah forged the signatures of the Mandal Samakhya Office Bearers of Dharur Mandal at the instance of the petitioner. Hence, said 5 Bandaiah was reinstated pending finalization of the disciplinary proceedings. Thereafter, the punishment of withholding one increment without cumulative effect for a period of one year was imposed against him. It is further contended that as per the enquiry report, the petitioner was solely responsible for the forgery of signatures in two cheques for Rs.8500/- and Rs.720/- respectively and she was slack and negligent in attending to her duty as Assistant Project Manager for Mandal Samakhya Dharur Mandal. Therefore, the respondents are justified in terminating the petitioner from services.
6. This Court has taken note of the submissions made by the respective Counsel.
7. A perusal of the record discloses that admittedly, the petitioner and her co-employee i.e. Mr.T.Bandaiah, Community Coordinator was equally responsible in releasing the cheques and they were placed under suspension. But, later on considering the representation submitted by said T.Bandaiah, he was reinstated into service on 13.09.2013 by the third respondent pending finalization of the disciplinary proceedings. After completion of the enquiry, he was imposed with the punishment of withholding one increment without cumulative effect for a period of one year, inspite of charges leveled against him were proved. But, in case of the petitioner, though, she has submitted her explanation stating that due to oversight and lack of experience, the mistake was happened, the second respondent has acted selectively and removed her from service 6 vide impugned proceedings. Further, the punishment of removal is disproportionate to the gravity of the charge leveled against her.
8. In Tata Engineering and Locomotives Co. Ltd. v. Jitendra Pd.Singh 1, the Hon'ble Apex Court held as under:
"who are facing similar set of charges and proved against them, there cannot be parity in punishments."
9. In K.Rajendra Prasad v. State of Andhra Pradesh 2, a Division Bench of this Court in similar circumstances passed orders and the operative portion of the said order reads as under:
"...Hence, this Court is of the considered view by following the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Naresh Chandra Bhardwaj that the punishment of dismissal as imposed by the respondents on the petitioner deserves to be modified to that of compulsory retirement because the disciplinary authority must consider the parity of punishments while imposing on the other two employees. 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."
10. In view of the above, this Court is of the opinion that, the above judgment is squarely applicable to the facts of the present case. In the present case also, the respondents singled out the petitioner by imposing the punishment of removal from service and the individual, who faced similar charges that of the petitioner and against whom the charges were proved, was imposed with lesser punishment of withholding one increment without cumulative effect for a period of one year. The disciplinary authority must consider the parity of punishments when two 1 (2001) 10 SCC 530 2 Unreported judgment in WP.No.26726 of 2011, dated 30.11.2022 7 employees are facing similar charges. Therefore, the impugned order is liable to be set aside.
11. Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed. The impugned order in File No. 3032/SERP/HRHII/RR/2013, dated 18.01.2014 issued by the second respondent is hereby set aside and the matter is remanded back to the second respondent with a direction to reconsider the case of the petitioner on par with similarly situated person i.e. Mr.T.Bandaiah who, faced similar charges and imposed lesser punishment against him.
Miscellaneous petitions, pending, if any, in this writ petition shall stand closed. No costs.
___________________ PULLA KARTHIK, J 01.12.2023 Nvl