S. Uppalaiah vs T.S.R.T.C.,
2022 Latest Caselaw 2894 Tel

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

                      W.A.No.256 of 2018

JUDGMENT:      (Per Hon'ble Sri Justice Abhinand Kumar Shavili)


      This Writ Appeal is filed aggrieved by the orders

passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.19258 of

2006 dt.01-06-2017.


      2.     Heard Sri G.Ravi Mohan, learned counsel for

the appellant and Sri A. Ravi Babu, learned Standing

Counsel for the respondents-Corporation.

3. It has been contended by the appellant that he

was initially appointed as a Driver on 01-10-1989 with the

respondent-Corporation and owning to his ill-health and

other domestic problems, he had absented himself from

duty from 06-06-2004 to 26-08-2004. The appellant had

contended that the disciplinary authority has construed

the same as misconduct and initiated disciplinary

proceedings and after conducting detailed enquiry, it has

imposed a major penalty of removal from service vide

proceedings dt.19-03-2005.

                                2                       HCJ & AKS,J
                                                  W.A.No.256 of 2018

4. Aggrieved by the said order of removal, the

appellant preferred appeal to the appellate authority and

the appellate authority was pleased to set aside the orders

of removal vide proceedings dt.17-08-2005 and was

pleased to order reinstatement into service. However, the

appellate authority has imposed the punishment of

reduction of pay by two incremental stages for a period of

two years which will have cumulative effect on his future

increments. Aggrieved by the said orders of appellate

authority, the appellant has challenged the same by filing

W.P.No.19258 of 2006 and the learned Single Judge has

not considered any of the contentions raised by the

appellant and had mechanically dismissed the Writ Petition

vide orders dt.01-06-2017.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant had further

contended that the reduction of pay by two incremental

stages for a period of two years which will have cumulative

effect on his future increments is a major penalty for the

minor misconduct of absence of 81 days. Though the

appellate authority has modified the major penalty of 3 HCJ & AKS,J W.A.No.256 of 2018

removal, again imposed other major penalty. Therefore,

appropriate orders be passed in the Writ Appeal by setting

aside orders of learned Single Judge and further direct the

respondents to at least modify the major penalty of

reduction of pay by two incremental stages for a period of

two years without cumulative effect. Learned counsel for

the appellant had further contended that the punishment

as modified by the appellate authority vide proceedings

dt.17-08-2005 is shockingly disproportionate to the alleged

mis-conduct. Therefore, appropriate orders be passed in

the Writ Appeal by directing the respondents to modify the

punishment as reduction of pay by two incremental stages

for a period of two years without cumulative effect.

6. Learned Standing Counsel for the respondent-

Corporation had contended that the appellate authority

has taken the totality of the circumstances and modified

the punishment of removal to that of reduction of pay by

two incremental stages for a period of two years which will

have cumulative effect on his future increments and more

over, the appellant had retired from service and at this 4 HCJ & AKS,J W.A.No.256 of 2018

stage, no relief can be granted to the appellant and that the

appellate authority has already taken lenient view by

modifying the punishment to that of reduction of pay by

two incremental stages for a period of two years which will

have cumulative effect on his future increments.

Therefore, there are no merits and the Writ Appeal is liable

to be dismissed.

7. This Court having considered the rival

submissions made by the parties is of the considered view

that the appellate authority has rightly modified the alleged

punishment of removal from service to that of reduction of

pay by two incremental stages for a period of two years

which will have cumulative effect on his future increments

and the contention of the appellant that the punishment of

reduction of pay by two incremental stages for a period of

two years which will have cumulative effect on his future

increments is shockingly disproportionate to the alleged

mis-conduct is not true. Admittedly, the appellant was

working as Driver and without obtaining prior permission,

he absented himself for 81 days. Therefore, the 5 HCJ & AKS,J W.A.No.256 of 2018

punishment as modified by the appellate authority is

commensurate to the charges and the same is not

shockingly disproportionate punishment and moreover the

appellant has retired from service and therefore, at this

stage, no relief can be granted. Accordingly, the Writ

Appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.

Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand

closed.

__________________________________ SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA, CJ

________________________________ ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI, J 17.06.2022 kvr