Telangana High Court
The Depot Manager And 2 Others vs A. G. Goud on 7 April, 2022
Bench: Satish Chandra Sharma, Abhinand Kumar Shavili
THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA
AND
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI
WRIT APPEAL No.241 of 2022
JUDGMENT: (Per the Hon'ble the Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma)
The present writ appeal is arising out of the order dated
25.01.2022 passed by the learned Single Judge in
W.P.No.15709 of 2004.
The undisputed facts of the case reveal that the
respondent/employee, who was serving on the post of
Conductor, was charge-sheeted for unauthorised absence. He
did submit a reply to the charge sheet on 01.11.1996 and
thereafter the entire enquiry was concluded approximately
within 30 days and an order of removal was passed on
04.01.1997. The appeal preferred in the matter was rejected on
31.03.1997 and thereafter a review petition was preferred in the
matter. The reviewing authority has modified the removal order
by directing reinstatement of the respondent/employee but
deferring future increments for a period of two years which shall
have effect for postponing of future increments and also
directing that the period of absence shall be treated as not on
duty for leave, gratuity, provident fund and other monetary
benefits.
The respondent/employee before the learned Single Judge
as well as before the reviewing authority came up with a case
that he was unwell and in those circumstances, he was not able
to submit an application in time and also prayed for quashment
of the punishment awarded in the matter.
The learned Single Judge, as the charge was relating to
unauthorised absence of 26 days and 43 days, instead of
disposing of the matter on the ground of alternative remedy i.e.,
remedy of approaching Industrial Tribunal, has interfered with
the quantum of punishment.
Paragraph Nos.5 to 8 of the order passed by the learned
Single Judge are reproduced as under:-
"5. Having regard to the rival contentions and the material on
record, this Court finds that the first issue is whether a writ
petition is maintainable when alternative remedy of filing of ID
before the Labour Court is available. Admittedly, the petitioner
has not approached the Labour Court for the relief, but has
come straight away to the High Court. Filing of ID before the
Labour Court is not a statutory remedy available to the
petitioner and therefore, it cannot be said that the petitioner
ought to have approached the Labour Court and not the High
Court in appeal. Therefore, this contention of the respondents is
rejected.
6. As regards the long delay in approaching this Court against
the punishment and the reliance of the learned counsel for the
respondents on the decision of the Hon'ble A.P. High Court in
the case of P.V.Narayana and others (2013(4) ALD 386), this
Court finds that it is a case where the appeal was filed in the
year 2007 after a lapse of 15 years and the revision was also
dismissed. In the present case, this Court finds that the
petitioner had filed appeal and review petition within time
before the authorities and it is before this Court that the
petitioner has filed the present petition with a delay of nearly 7
years. Therefore, the decision of the Hon'ble A.P. High Court in
the case of P.V.Narayana and others (1 supra) is not applicable
to the case on hand. However, this Writ Petition was admitted
and is pending for long and at this stage it is not proper to
dismiss this Writ Petition only on the ground of delay.
Therefore, this contention of the respondents is also rejected.
7. As far as the proportionality of punishment for the charges of
unauthorised absence of 26 days and 43 days is concerned,
this Court finds that the reviewing authority has accepted the
reasonable cause explained by the petitioner for remaining
absent during the relevant period. It was convinced that the
petitioner was sick and therefore he could not attend to the
duties. Having held so, the authority has modified the
punishment of removal from service to deferment of his annual
increment which falls next due for a period of 2 years with
cumulative effect. This Court finds that the punishment
imposed by the reviewing authority is disproportionate to the
charges levelled and proved against the petitioner. In such
circumstances, the proper course of action would be to remand
the issue to the file of the respondents to reconsider the
quantum of punishment. However, due to lapse of nearly 18
years, instead of remanding the case, this Court deems it fit and
proper to modify the punishment to stoppage of one annual
increment for a period of 2 years without cumulative effect.
8. The Writ Petition is accordingly allowed in part. No order as
to costs."
In the considered opinion of this Court, the punishment
awarded at the first instance i.e., removal was certainly
shockingly disproportionate to the misconduct of the
respondent/employee. The respondent/employee was unwell
and the reviewing authority has also accepted the same and has
reduced the quantum of punishment from removal to that of
stoppage of two increments with cumulative effect. The learned
Single Judge has again arrived at a conclusion that the
punishment awarded even by the reviewing authority was
shockingly disproportionate. The employee was unwell and the
illness of the employee was also taken into account by the
reviewing authority. The learned Single Judge, as the petition
was of the year 2004 and the matter was about twenty years
old, has rightly interfered with the quantum of punishment and
this Court, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case,
does not find any reason to interfere with the order passed by
the learned Single Judge.
Resultantly, the writ appeal is dismissed.
Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand
closed. There shall be no order as to costs.
________________________
SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA, CJ
_______________________
ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI, J
07.04.2022
JSU
