Telangana High Court
T. Hemanth Kumar Singh vs The Union Of India, Ministry Of Railways on 7 November, 2024
Author: Abhinand Kumar Shavili
Bench: Abhinand Kumar Shavili
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI
AND
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY
WRIT PETITIONS Nos.21182 of 2013 & 15893 of 2014
COMMON ORDER:
(per Hon'ble Sri Justice Abhinand Kumar Shavili) Since the issue involved in both the Writ Petitions is one and the same, they are heard together and being disposed of by common order.
2. Writ Petition No.21182 of 2013 is filed by the Union of India, Ministry of Railways, aggrieved by the order, dated 23.04.2013, passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench, Hyderabad (hereinafter referred to as 'Tribunal') in O.A.No.1350 of 2010.
3. Writ Petition No.15893 of 2014 is filed by the employee aggrieved by the order, dated 23.04.2013, passed by the Tribunal in O.A.No.1350 of 2010, only to the extent of treating his out of service period as dies-non.
4. Heard Sri D.V.Seetharam Murthy, learned senior counsel appearing for Sri C.Aravind, learned counsel on record for the petitioner, in W.P.No.15893 of 2014 and Smt Anjali Agarwal, 2 AKS, J & LNA, J WP.Nos.21182 of 2013 & 15893 of 2014 learned Standing Counsel for Central Government appearing for the petitioners in W.P.No.21182 of 2013.
5. For convenience, hereinafter, the parties will be referred to as they are arrayed in WP.No.21182 of 2013 and the facts in W.P.No.21182 of 2013 are hereunder discussed.
6. It has been contended by the petitioners that the respondent was initially appointed as Probationary Ticket Collector in South Central Railway on 06.11.1980; that after completing the initial training course, he was absorbed as Ticket Collector; that while he was discharging his duties as such, on the intervening night of 18/19-11-1995, it was found that he indulged in collecting an excess amount of Rs.1,957/- illegally from the passengers; that a criminal case was registered against the respondent under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, vide C.C.No.14 of 1996 before the Special Court for CBI Cases, Visakhapatnam (for brevity, hereinafter referred to as 'the Special Court') and the Special Court, vide judgment dated 31.12.1997, convicted the respondent for the offences under Sections 403, 465 and 471 IPC and sentenced him to pay fine of Rs.500/- for each of the said 3 AKS, J & LNA, J WP.Nos.21182 of 2013 & 15893 of 2014 offences and further, he was sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for three months for the offence under Section 13(1)(i)(ii) r/w 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Aggrieved by the said conviction orders, the respondent preferred Criminal Appeal No.30 of 1998 before this Court and this Court, vide judgment dated 07.03.2003, was pleased to set aside the conviction imposed on the respondent by the Special Court and remanded the case to the Special Court for fresh consideration.
7. Learned Standing Counsel for the petitioners further contended that consequent upon conviction of the respondent by the Special Court, he was dismissed from service vide proceedings dated 21.03.1998 and when this Court set aside the conviction of the respondent in Criminal Appeal and remanded the matter to the Special Court, the petitioners have reinstated the respondent into service on 09.12.2003 and finally, the respondent was acquitted by the Special Court, vide judgment dated 04.02.2005 in CC.No.14 of 1996. As the Special Court has not given clean acquittal to the 4 AKS, J & LNA, J WP.Nos.21182 of 2013 & 15893 of 2014 respondent, the disciplinary authority had initiated disciplinary proceedings against the respondent and issued a charge memo dated 08.06.2006 to the respondent; that in all two articles of charges were framed against the respondent and in the enquiry, the respondent except making a representation that he would submit his defence statement, has not chosen to submit the same; that the enquiry officer has submitted a report dated 14.05.2009, holding that the charges are proved and based upon the proven misconduct, the disciplinary authority has imposed the punishment of removal from service on the respondent and thereafter, the respondent has unsuccessfully preferred Appeal and later, challenged the orders of removal before the Tribunal by filing O.A.No.1350 of 2010 and the Tribunal, without appreciating any of the contentions raised by the petitioners, was pleased to allow the O.A. in favour of the respondent vide orders dated 23.04.2013 and directed the petitioners to reinstate the respondent into service within a period of three months from the date of passing of the said order.
8. Learned Standing Counsel for the petitioners further contended that in the impugned order, the Tribunal has re-
5 AKS, J & LNA, J WP.Nos.21182 of 2013 & 15893 of 2014 appreciated the evidence as though it is sitting as an appellate authority, which is not permissible, and interfered with the orders of removal and therefore, she prayed that appropriate orders be passed in Writ Petition No.21182 of 2013 by setting aside the impugned order of the Tribunal.
9. Learned Standing Counsel for the petitioners further contended that the issue whether the Tribunal and High Court can re-appreciate the evidence as though sitting as an appellate authority was considered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in The State of Karnataka Vs. Umesh 1 and contended that the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the Tribunal cannot sit as an appellate authority and re-appreciate the evidence and therefore, the impugned order passed by the Tribunal is liable to be set aside.
10. On the other hand, learned senior counsel appearing for the respondent contended that the respondent was acquitted by the Special Court and on the very same allegations, the disciplinary authority had initiated disciplinary proceedings and imposed major punishment of removal from service on the respondent. He further 1 2022(6) SCC 563 6 AKS, J & LNA, J WP.Nos.21182 of 2013 & 15893 of 2014 submitted that the issue raised in the present case is squarely covered by the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in G.M.Tank Vs. State of Gujarat 2 and Ram Lal Vs. State of Rajasthan and others 3, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that if an employee is acquitted in a criminal case, the question of imposing punishment in a domestic enquiry on the very same charges would not arise. He further contended that the Tribunal, after examining the case, came to a conclusion that the charges levelled against the respondent could not be proved, however, the Tribunal has treated the out of employment period as dies-non. He submitted that the Tribunal erred in treating the out of employment period as dies-non, at best, the said aspect of treating the out of employment period should have been left open to the disciplinary authority.
11. Learned counsel for the respondent further informed the Court that the respondent has attained the age of superannuation on 28.02.2017, i.e., during the pendency of the present Writ Petitions and therefore, interfering with the orders of the Tribunal at this 2 (2006) 5 SCC 446 3 2023 SCC Online SC 1618 7 AKS, J & LNA, J WP.Nos.21182 of 2013 & 15893 of 2014 point of time may not be feasible. Therefore, he contended that there are no merits in Writ Petition No.21182 of 2013 and the same is liable to be dismissed and Writ Petition filed by the respondent i.e., W.P.No.15893 of 2014 has to be allowed and the portion of impugned order of the Tribunal treating the out of employment period of the respondent as dies-non is liable to be set aside and the said period shall be dealt with by the disciplinary authority.
12. This Court, having regard to the rival submissions made by learned counsel for both the parties, is of the considered view that the Tribunal has interfered with the punishment of removal by re-appreciating the evidence, but in the light of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Umesh's case (1st cited supra), the Tribunal was not justified in re-appreciating the evidence. However, the fact remains that the respondent was tried and acquitted by the Special Court for the charges levelled therein and on the very same set of allegations and charges, the disciplinary authority has initiated disciplinary proceedings. Therefore, the issue raised in the present Writ Petitions is squarely covered by the 8 AKS, J & LNA, J WP.Nos.21182 of 2013 & 15893 of 2014 judgments rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in G.M.Tank's case (2nd cited supra) and Ram Lal's case (3rd cited supra).
13. It is also noticed that the respondent has attained the age of superannuation on 20.02.2017 and therefore, the only issue that remains for consideration is whether the respondent should be paid the terminal benefits. Therefore, this court is not inclined to interfere with the impugned order passed by the Tribunal.
14. Accordingly, W.P.No.21182 of 2013 filed by the Union of India, Ministry of Railways, is dismissed.
15. Insofar as W.P.No.15893 of 2014 filed by the employee is concerned, the same is allowed in part and the portion of impugned order of the Tribunal directing to treat the out of employment period of the respondent as dies-non is set aside and the disciplinary authority is directed to treat out of employment period of the respondent in accordance with the Rules. Further, it is held that the respondent is entitled to all the benefits consequent upon setting aside of the removal orders by the Tribunal. No costs.
9 AKS, J & LNA, J WP.Nos.21182 of 2013 & 15893 of 2014
16. As a sequel, Miscellaneous Petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.
_______________________________ ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI, J ___________________________________ LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY, J Dated:07.11.2024 dr