B. Goverdhan, Hyderabad vs Md, Apsrtc, Musheerabad, ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 2007 Tel

THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA
                                       AND
    THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI

               WRIT APPEAL No.1027 of 2016

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


     The present writ appeal is arising out of an order

dated 29.06.2016 passed by the learned Single Judge in

W.P.No.7414 of 2005.

     The facts of the case reveal that the appellant, who

was appointed as a clerk in the year 1973, was working on

the post of Senior Assistant in Personnel Department of

Mahabubnagar Region from 1995 to August, 1999.                                 The

facts further reveal that one K.B.Goud, an employee of the

Corporation has approached the Labour Court challenging

his termination order and the Labour Court has passed an

order directing his reinstatement with continuity of service,

attendant benefits and 50% of back wages.                                The second

respondent ordered reinstatement of K.B.Goud subject to

filing of the writ petition by the Corporation against the

order of the Labour Court. However, the writ petition was

not filed. The Corporation was constrained to pay

Rs.1,03,741/- towards 50% of back wages to K.B.Goud

and because the Corporation was forced to pay

Rs.1,03,741/-, three persons were charge-sheeted in the

matter. The disciplinary authority finally passed an order

apportioning the loss in the ratio of 10:30:60 upon all three

employees and it was the appellant who was inflicted with

a punishment of recovery of Rs.62,244.60. The undisputed

facts make it very clear that the procedure prescribed for

conducting the disciplinary enquiry was not violated and

principles of natural justice and fair play were also not

violated. However, the learned Single Judge, by taking a

lenient view in the matter, has modified the punishment

and reduced the recovery amount of Rs.62,244.60 to

Rs.31,122.30. Meaning thereby, 50% amount has been

directed to be recovered in the matter.

This Court has carefully gone through the writ

petition as well as the writ appeal and the appellant has

not been able to point out any procedural irregularity in

the departmental enquiry conducted against him. The

learned Single Judge has also not been able to find out any

infirmity in the departmental enquiry proceedings and

therefore, in the considered opinion of this Court, the order

passed by the learned Single Judge does not warrant any

interference, as the learned Single Judge has already

shown leniency on the appellant.

Resultantly, the writ appeal is dismissed.

The miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall

stand closed. There shall be on order as to costs.

______________________________________ SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA, CJ

______________________________________ ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI, J

19.04.2022 vs