K. Rama Mohan vs The Managing Director And Another
2021 Latest Caselaw 4002 Tel

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

                                 W.A.No.951 of 2019

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



        The present writ appeal is arising out of the order dated

28.09.2018 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.14144 of

2009.

        The     undisputed           facts       of       the     case       reveal   that   the

appellant/writ        petitioner           was        a     Conductor          appointed     on

26.05.1990 and while discharging duties on 21.10.2006, a

surprise check took place and it was revealed that he was involved

in cash and ticket irregularities. A charge sheet was also issued

and after conducting a detailed and exhaustive departmental

enquiry, punishment of removal from service was inflicted upon

him on 06.03.2007.                  The appellant/writ petitioner preferred

I.D.No.69 of 2007 before the Labour Court and the Labour court

has passed an award dated 17.10.2008 dismissing the petition

preferred by him.            Thereafter, the appellant/writ petitioner has

approached this court and the learned Single Judge, even though

there were cash and ticket irregularities committed by the

appellant/writ petitioner, has interfered with the quantum of

punishment.

        Paragraphs 6 and 7 of the order passed by the learned single

Judge read as under:-

        "6.     This Court having considered the submissions made by the
        parties and the nature of the charges levelled against the
        petitioner, is of the considered view that the punishment of removal
        imposed by the respondent-Corporation is very disproportionate

and the Labour Court ought to have examined the case of the

petitioner and interfered with the punishment of removal by applying the proportionality theory and at least, the Labour Court ought to have directed the respondent-Corporation to reinstate the petitioner into service as fresh conductor. Since the punishment of removal is shockingly disproportionate, this Court feels that ends of justice would be met if the respondent-Corporation is directed to reinstate the petitioner into service as fresh conductor.

7. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of directing the respondent-Corporation to reinstate the petitioner into service as fresh conductor, subject to medical fitness, without continuity of service, without back wages and other attendant benefits. No costs. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. "

In the considered opinion of this court, as the appellant/writ

petitioner was involved in cash and ticket irregularities

(misappropriation of Government funds), the learned Single Judge

was justified in directing his reinstatement as a fresh conductor.

Leniency has already been shown to him to a great extent and he

wants further leniency. The appellant/writ petitioner has not been

able to point out any procedural irregularity in the departmental

enquiry nor in the award passed by the Labour Court and

therefore, this court does not find any reason to interfere with the

order passed by the learned Single Judge.

The Writ Appeal is dismissed.

Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand

closed.

___________________________ SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA, CJ

___________________________ A.RAJASHEKER REDDY, J 30.11.2021 JSU