P.Abbaji Rao vs State Of Andhra Pradesh
2022 Latest Caselaw 9221 AP

        THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE K. MANMADHA RAO

                WRIT PETITION (AT) No.212 OF 2021

ORDER:

This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the

Constitution of India, seeking the following relief:

".....to issue a Writ, Order or direction to declare that the action of the respondents in imposing the punishment vide G.O.Rt.No.432 TR & B (VIG-Tr(1)), Department, dated 26.08.2015 issued by the 1st respondent for non-signing the attendance register on 15.05.2003 and only signing the personal cash register, inspite of not proving any other irregularity, as illegal, arbitrary and shockingly disproportionate and set aside the same and consequently direct the respondents to release the annual grade increments so withheld immediately and pass such other orders...."

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner; learned

Government Pleader for Services-II for the respondents.

3. Brief facts of the case of the petitioner is that while the

petitioner working as Transport Constable, Transport Check Post,

Kathipudi, East Godavari District during 01.03.2003 to

31.05.2003, the ACB, Rajahmundry conducted surprise check and

issued a Charge Memo No. 6042/V3/2003-3, dated 22.02.2007

under Rule 20 of A.P.Civil Services (CCA) Rules, 1991 and framed

articles of charges against him along with two other constables.

The petitioner submitted his explanation on 03.08.2007 denying

the charges against him. Thereafter an enquiry was initiated and

after completion of departmental enquiry, the 1st respondent

communicated the enquiry report dated 26.05.2010 along with

Memo dated 25.08.2010 to the petitioner and called for objections.

Upon which the petitioner submitted his representation dated

28.08.2010 requesting to drop the charges. Inspite of clear finding

of the Enquiry Officer, Charge against the petitioner in so far as

non-signing the attendance register on 15.05.2003, which is a

bonafide omission of the petitioner and also he signed on the

personal cash register on 15.05.2003. Due to forget to sign on the

attendance register and without considering the explanation and

findings of the enquiry officer, the 1st respondent imposed

punishment vide G.O.Rt.No.432, dated 26.08.2015 withholding

one annual increment with cumulative effect against the petitioner

is highly illegal and arbitrary. Hence the writ petition came to be

filed.

4. Per contra, respondents filed counter-affidavit denying all

material averments and mainly contended that the Transport

Commissioner has initiated Disciplinary Proceedings against the

petitioner dated 07.06.2003 by framing articles of charges and

after examining the explanation submitted by the petitioner, an

enquiry was initiated and submitted his report. Charges framed

against one Mr. B.Bhima Rao as not proved and one K. Vijaya

Raju, Assistant Motor Vehicle Inspector as proved. As far as this

petitioner is concerned, the enquiring authority, after conducting

detailed enquiry submitted a report holding that the charges

against the petitioner as proved and one P.V.Ramana Rao and M.

Appa Rao, Transport Constables, as not proved. After examining

the representation of the petitioner, the Government observed that

the main contention of the Charged Officer is that he declared his

personal cash in the personal cash register and omitted to sign in

the attendance register. Further it is the duty and responsibility of

the employee to sign in the attendance registered and declares

personal cash in the personal cash registers when he reports for

duty. Both the registers have significance in the proper functioning

of the check post. Therefore there is negligence on the part of the

petitioner in not signing in the attendance register, which is self

admitted fact before the enquiring authority by the petitioner.

Therefore the Government have proposed to impose the

punishment of stoppage of one annual grade increment with

cumulative effect. Therefore the writ petition is liable to be

dismissed.

5. During hearing learned counsel for the petitioner

reiterated the contents urged in the writ petition and mainly

contended that 1st respondent issued the major punishment

against the petitioner by treating his bonafide omissions of

forgetting to sign in the attendance register on one day on

15.05.2003 and he signed in the personal cash register, which is

not a major irregularity and further contended that the petitioner

discharging his duty and not absconded. Therefore, requested to

examine the gravity of alleged misconduct levelled against the

petitioner and set aside the impugned order, which was issued

illegally.

6. Further in a similar circumstances, the learned Tribunal

passed order dated 08.10.2012 in O.A.No.5106 of 2010 wherein

the learned Tribunal reduced the punishment, by examining the

gravity of the Charges therein. The copy of the order also placed on

record. The learned Tribunal also discussed the case of

"B.C.Chaturvedi Vs. Union of India"1 wherein the Hon'ble Apex

Court held as follows:

"A review of the above legal position would establish that the disciplinary authority, and on appeal the appellate authority, being fact-finding authorities have exclusive power to consider the evidence with a view to maintain discipline. They are invested with the discretion to impose appropriate punishment keeping in view the magnitude or gravity of the misconduct. The High Court/ Tribunal, while exercising the power of judicial review, cannot normally substitute its own conclusion on penalty and impose some other penalty. If the punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority or the appellate authority shocks the

(1995) 6 SCC 749= 1995 AIR SCW 4374

conscience of the High Court/ Tribunal, it would appropriately mould the relief, either directing the disciplinary/ appellate authority to reconsider the penalty imposed, or to shorten the litigation, it may itself, in exceptional and rate cases, impose appropriate punishment with cogent reasons in support thereof".

7. Therefore, it is made clear in the judgment that this Court

can interfere in the matter of punishment and impose punishment

in less with cogent reasons. Since the petitioner signed in the

Personal Cash Register and he did not sign in the attendance

register, therefore the learned counsel petitioner contended that

the non signing of the petitioner in the attendance register is a

bonafide mistake, but not grave mistake as alleged. Further there

is no gross negligence on the part of the petitioner. In view of

simple mistake arrived at just conclusion, the respondents

imposed the punishment of stoppage of one annual grade

increment with cumulative effect is highly illegal and arbitrary.

8. This Court on observation came to conclusion, the

petitioner did not commit mistake deliberately. The petitioner

admitted that he signed in the personal cash register and he was

present on that day and the only omission was not signing in the

attendance register, which is a bonafide omission. Therefore the

same cannot be treated as mistake on the part of the petitioner

and pleaded to the respondents by way of representation to drop

further action in the matter. Therefore, this Court feels that it is

not a grave irregularity on the part of the petitioner to the extent of

non-signing in the attendance register, though he was present and

discharging duty and put his sign in the personal cash register.

Under these circumstances, the respondents cannot impose

punishment of stoppage of one annual grade increment with

cumulative effect is highly untenable and illegal. The respondents

have to take action without affecting major penalty. Here in the

instant case, the respondents imposed major punishment for non

signing the petitioner in the attendance register for one day,

though he was present and discharged his duties. Such act

adopted by the respondents is questionable.

9. Therefore, this Court viewing from any angle, the

impugned proceedings dated 26.08.2015 issued by the 1st

respondent for non-signing the attendance register on 15.05.2003

is illegal and arbitrary and same is hereby set aside. Further the

respondents are directed to release the annual grade increments so

withheld to the petitioner, within a period of six (06) weeks from

the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

10. With the above direction, the Writ Petition is allowed.

There shall be no order as to costs.

As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall

also stand closed.

___________________________ DR.K. MANMADHA RAO, J

Date: .12.2022

KK

THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE K. MANMADHA RAO

WRIT PETITION (AT) No.212 OF 2021

Date: .12.2022

KK