Andhra Pradesh Road Transport ... vs N.V. Gopal,
2021 Latest Caselaw 3662 Tel

  THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA
                                    AND
          THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.RAJASHEKER REDDY



                  WRIT APPEAL No.434 of 2019


JUDGMENT:    (Per the Hon'ble the Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma)


     The present writ appeal is arising out of the order

dated 16.11.2018 passed by the learned Single Judge in

W.P.No.23442 of 2002.

     The facts of the case reveal that the respondent was

absent for 62 days and in those circumstances, a charge

sheet was issued on 26.09.1994 for being unauthorisedly

absent. He submitted a reply and a final order was

passed inflicting a punishment of removal on

05.04.1995. The respondent has thereafter preferred an

appeal and the appellate authority by an order dated

30.06.1995 directed reinstatement into service and

reduced his basic pay to the minimum of the time scale

for a period of two years with cumulative effect. He

preferred a review and the review petition was rejected by

an order dated 26.06.1996. Thereafter, he has preferred

the writ petition and the learned Single Judge has

moderated the penalty to that of reduction of pay by two

incremental stages for a period of two years without

cumulative effect.

Learned counsel for the appellants has argued

before this Court that there was no irregularity

committed in the disciplinary proceedings and principles

of natural justice and fair play were observed and

therefore, there was no occasion for the learned Single

Judge to interfere with the punishment order.

On the other hand, learned counsel for the

respondent has argued before this Court that for the

unauthorised absence, the punishment shockingly

disproportionate to the guilt of the respondent was

inflicted. It is not a case of embezzlement or

misappropriation and therefore, the learned Single Judge

was justified in passing the impugned order.

This Court has carefully gone though the order of

punishment and the order passed by the learned Single

Judge. Undisputedly, the respondent was unauthorisedly

absent for so many days. The employer has initially

passed an order of removal. However, later on, the

appellate authority has modified the same. In the

considered opinion of this Court, as the punishment was

certainly disproportionate to the guilt of the employee,

this Court does not find any reason to interfere with the

order passed by the learned Single Judge. The admission

is declined.

The writ appeal is accordingly dismissed. The

miscellaneous applications pending in this appeal, if any,

shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.

___________________________ SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA, CJ

___________________________ A.RAJASHEKER REDDY, J 22.11.2021 vs