Telangana High Court

Ch.Yadagiti, Hyderabad60. vs Union Odf India, Rep By Sec, Dept Of ... on 26 October, 2022

Bench: Abhinand Kumar Shavili, K. Sarath

     THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI

                                    AND

              THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SARATH

                   Writ Petition No.12125 of 2006


ORDER : (Per Hon'ble Sri Justice K.Sarath)


1.         This writ petition is filed seeking Writ of Certiorari to

call for the records relating to the order dated 07.06.2005 in

O.A.No.1151 of 2002 on the file of the Central Administrative

Tribunal, Hyderabad (for brevity 'the Tribunal'), wherein the

claim of the petitioner was rejected on the ground that the

punishment        awarded         was   not    shockingly    high   and

disproportionate to the offence committed by the petitioner

and therefore, the Tribunal does not interfere with the

exercise of the power of the authorities in awarding the

punishment,       which      is    illegal    and   arbitrary,   without

appreciating the material on record and declare the action of

the respondents in imposing the discriminatory punishment

and consequently quash and set aside the same and to direct

the respondents to reinstate the petitioner into service with all

consequential benefits and pass such other order or orders as

this Court deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the

case.

                                 2                      AKS,J & SK,J
                                                 W.P.No.12125 of 2006
                                                     Dt.____.10.2022

2. Heard Sri.B.Anurag for Smt.K.Udaya Sri counsel

for the petitioner, Incharge Assistant Solicitor General and

Sri.A.Sameer Kumar Reddy for the respondents.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended

that the petitioner was appointed as Postal Assistant in the

year, 1959. While he was working in Postal Stores

Department, Hyderabad in the year, 1983 the petitioner was

served charge sheet containing two (2) charges for shortage of

papers of 746.49 reams and in December, 1983 and shortage

of paper (140 reams) noticed at the time of takeover i.e.,

verification of stock in June/July, 1983.

4. After conclusion of the inquiry he was dismissed

from the service on 10.12.1987. Against the said orders, he

filed Appeal and Revision and both were rejected. Against the

said orders he filed O.A.No.605 of 1991 of Central

Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad bench and the Tribunal

set aside the dismissal order on the ground that the copy of

the charge sheet was not furnished to the petitioner.

5. Thereafter, the petitioner was again dismissed

from service, against the said orders he filed Appeal and 3 AKS,J & SK,J W.P.No.12125 of 2006 Dt.____.10.2022

Revision and both were dismissed. Against the said orders,

the petitioner approached the Tribunal and filed O.A.No.1354

of 1994 and the Tribunal allowed the said O.A. on 25.09.1997

and set aside the dismissal order and remanded back to the

Appellate authority to consider for imposing a lesser

punishment as was imposed on the co-employee, who has

also been charged along with the petitioner. The Appellate

authority again confirmed the orders of dismissal, which was

challenged by the petitioner by filing O.A.No.47 of 2000, the

same was also once again remanded to the authority to

consider the allegations of discrimination as also to consider

whether the charge against the petitioner and the Assistant

Manager were identical and to consider the question of

punishment in the light of findings of those aspects.

Disciplinary Authority once again ordered dismissal on

05.10.2001 and the same was questioned in O.A.No.1151 of

2002.

6. The Tribunal partly allowed the O.A.No.1151 of

2002 on 07.06.2005 and the same is impugned before this

Court in the present Writ Petition.

                                                4                          AKS,J & SK,J
                                                                    W.P.No.12125 of 2006
                                                                        Dt.____.10.2022

7. The counsel for the petitioner contended that the

Tribunal without taking into consideration of the earlier

orders passed in the same subject matter directed the

respondents to pay the subsistence allowance from

26.06.1992 to 05.10.2001 with interest @ 6% but not given

any findings about the discrimination treated by the

respondents to the petitioner. The counsel for the petitioner

relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court

reported in Naresh Chandra Bhardwaj vs Bank of India

and others1, and judgment of this Hon'ble Court in

W.P.No.11237 of 2012 dated 01.08.2022 and submitted that

in case of parity in punishment, the Court may interfere and

to modify the punishment of removal to compulsory

retirement. The learned counsel for the petitioner further

contended that the orders passed by the Tribunal in

O.A.No.1151 of 2002, dated 07.06.2005 are without

considering the facts of the case and the Tribunal without

interfering with the impugned dismissal order, partly allowed

the O.A and the same is liable to be set aside with a direction

to treat the petitioner on par with the similarly situated

(2019) 15 Supreme Court Cases 786 5 AKS,J & SK,J W.P.No.12125 of 2006 Dt.____.10.2022

person as the punishment of dismissal is shockingly

disproportionate and be modified to that of compulsory

retirement as it was done in respect of a co-employee, who

was also involved in the same incident.

8. The learned counsel for the respondents

contended that the Tribunal has rightly given a finding that

there is no reason or justification to interfere with the

punishment of dismissal awarded by the disciplinary

authority vide orders dated 05.10.2001 and the Writ Petition

is liable to be dismissed.

9. This Court having considered the rival

submissions made by the counsel for both the parties is of the

considered view that the Tribunal without taking into account

of the earlier orders passed in O.A.No.605 of 1991, dated

01.01.1992 and orders in O.A.No.47 of 2000, dated

10.07.2001 passed the present impugned order. The specific

plea of the petitioner is that Sri.Y.Balram, the co-accused of

the same offence was awarded with lesser punishment of

compulsory retirement and the petitioner was punished with

penalty of dismissal and the co-employee Sri.Anjaneyulu was 6 AKS,J & SK,J W.P.No.12125 of 2006 Dt.____.10.2022

fully exonerated from the charges of shortage of papers and

the punishment of dismissal from the service imposed on the

petitioner is shocking and highly disproportionate and the

Tribunal ought to have at least modified the punishment of

dismissal to that of compulsory retirement as it was done in

the case of co-accused i.e. Y.Balaram. The Supreme Court in

Naresh Chandra Bhardwaj (1 supra), has held as under:

"......the domain of the courts on the issue of quantum of punishment is very limited. It is the disciplinary authority or the appellate authority, which decides the nature of punishment keeping in mind the seriousness of the misconduct committed. This would not imply that if the punishment is so disproportionate that it shocks the conscience of the court the courts are denuded of the authority to interfere with the same.

Hence, this Court is of the considered view by following the

law laid down by the Supreme Court in Naresh Chandra

Bhardwaj (1 supra) that the punishment of dismissal as

imposed by the respondents on the petitioner deserves to be

modified to that of compulsory retirement as it was done in

the case of Sri Y.Balaram because the disciplinary authority

must consider the parity of punishments while imposing on

the employees and the disciplinary authority cannot impose

the lesser punishment of compulsory retirement on 7 AKS,J & SK,J W.P.No.12125 of 2006 Dt.____.10.2022

Sri Y.Balaram while imposing a major punishment of

dismissal on the petitioner for the same set of allegations

levelled against both of them. Therefore, for the reasons