Telangana High Court

P. Sabitha Devi, vs The Government Of Telangana, on 1 December, 2023

                                     1



       THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE PULLA KARTHIK

                  WRIT PETITION No.16999 of 2014


      This Writ Petition is filed challenging the proceedings in File

No.3032/SERP/HRHII/RR/2013, dated 18.01.2014 issued by the second

respondent by removing the petitioner from service as highly illegal,

arbitrary, unreasonable, discriminatory and in violation of Articles 14, 16

and 21 of the Constitution of India and direct the respondents to

reinstate her into service as Assistant Project Manager with all

consequential benefits.

2. The case of the petitioner is that initially, she was appointed as a

Mandal Resource Person 16.02.2003 under the control of third

respondent. While she was working as Mandal Resource Person, she was

selected as Training Committee Coordinator in the year 2004 and

thereafter, she was appointed as an Assistant Project Manager in the

year 2011 at Dharoor Mandal, Ranga Reddy District under the control of

third respondent. The scheme i.e. SERP meant for elimination of Rural

Poverty of poorest of the poor from the SCs and STs in the society, for

which the State Government is running "Velugu Pathakam", which is

running under the control of SERP (Society for Elimination of Rural

Poverty). While, the petitioner was working as Assistant Branch Manager

under the control of third respondent, on certain financial irregularities,

the petitioner and another person, who is working as Community

Co-ordinator were kept under suspension on 30.04.2013 by the third

respondent. For which, the petitioner had submitted her detailed

explanation on 23.05.2013, wherein, it was categorically stated that an

amount of Rs.8500/- and Rs.1000/- were sanctioned through cheque

bearing Nos.381437 and 194220 and gave the details of expenditure. It is

further stated in the explanation that no single pie was misused by the

petitioner nor another, only in hurry manner without making any

voucher and later on, the cheques were submitted before the Committee

and the resolutions were passed on the said amounts. Further, it is

stated that in the said incident, four individuals were involved and out of

four, two of them are the petitioner and one Sri T.Bandaiah, who is

working as Community Coordinator, Dharur and they were made

responsible and placed under suspension. In the explanation submitted

by the petitioner, she admitted that due to oversight and lack of

experience, the said mistake was done. Though, the petitioner has

submitted sanctioned amount by way of a Debit Voucher, dated

14.12.2012, along with the expenditure receipts and the payment

receipts, for which, the record is available and submitted before the third

respondent. But, none of the record was considered by the third

respondent. Finally, an enquiry was conducted behind back of the

petitioner and straightaway, the report was submitted to the second

respondent. Basing on the same, the second respondent issued the

proceedings in File No.3032/SERP/HRII/RR/2013, dated 18.01.2014,

removed the petitioner from service. Hence, the present writ petition.

3. Heard Sri C.Raja Sekhar Reddy, learned counsel appearing for

the petitioner, Sri I.V.Siddhivardhana, learned counsel for respondent

Nos.2 and 3 and learned Government Pleader for respondent No.1.

4. It has been contended by learned counsel appearing for the

petitioner that on receipt of the suspension order along with charge

memo dated 30.04.2013, the petitioner has submitted her detailed

explanation stating that four persons were involved in the issue and out

of four, herself and one Mr.Bandaiah were made responsible and kept

them under suspension and she also admitted the fact that due to

oversight, the mistake was done and there is no malafide intention on

her to misuse the money. But, the respondents without considering the

explanation submitted by the petitioner conducted enquiry behind her

back and straightaway, removed her from service arbitrarily. It is further

contended that insofar as Mr.Bandaiah is concerned, the explanation

submitted by him on the same issue was considered and he was

reinstated into service on 13.09.2013 and he was allotted to Vikarabad

Mandal as Community Coordinator (PWT) vide proceedings dated

17.10.2013 issued by the third respondent, which amounts to clear

discrimination between the petitioner and another person, who are

equally responsible for the issue. Therefore, the punishment of removal

from service cannot be sustained on the ground of discrimination. In

support of his contention, he has placed reliance on the order passed by

this Court in WP.No.14417 of 2021, dated 31.03.2023.

5. Per contra, learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondent

Nos.2 and 3 submits that on the reports given by District Micro Groups

(Head Quarters), District Micro Groups (Vikarabad) and Area

Coordinator, Vikarabad dated 27.04.2013 and 29.04.2013 about the

financial irregularities done by the petitioner with a malafide intention,

she was placed under suspension on 30.04.2013 and a detailed enquiry

was ordered. It is further contended that the cheques prepared for

Rs.720/-, Rs.1000/- and overwritten/corrected cheques for Rs.8500/-

were issued neither by passing any resolutions of the Mandal Mahila

Samakhya nor production of any bills/vouchers for the expenditure

incurred in the Mandal Mahila Samakhya, Dharur. Further, it was

revealed in the enquiry report that the Community

Co-ordinator Mr.Bandaiah had overwritten/corrected the cheques at the

instance of the petitioner and she kept the blank cheques with the

signatures of the Mandal Samakhya Office Bearers of Dharur Mandal

with a malafide intention to misappropriate the funds. It is further

contended that as per the detailed enquiry report of the Additional

Project Director-II, there was clear evidence against the petitioner and

also T.Bandaiah, the Community Coordinator, who have written the

cheques bearing Nos.381437 and 194220 for amount of Rs.8500/- and

Rs.1000/- respectively and had withdrawn the cash without supporting

bills/vouchers by misleading the Mandal Samakhya Office Bearers and

said Bandaiah forged the signatures of the Mandal Samakhya Office

Bearers of Dharur Mandal at the instance of the petitioner. Hence, said

Bandaiah was reinstated pending finalization of the disciplinary

proceedings. Thereafter, the punishment of withholding one increment

without cumulative effect for a period of one year was imposed against

him. It is further contended that as per the enquiry report, the petitioner

was solely responsible for the forgery of signatures in two cheques for

Rs.8500/- and Rs.720/- respectively and she was slack and negligent in

attending to her duty as Assistant Project Manager for Mandal Samakhya

Dharur Mandal. Therefore, the respondents are justified in terminating

the petitioner from services.

6. This Court has taken note of the submissions made by the

respective Counsel.

7. A perusal of the record discloses that admittedly, the petitioner

and her co-employee i.e. Mr.T.Bandaiah, Community Coordinator was

equally responsible in releasing the cheques and they were placed under

suspension. But, later on considering the representation submitted by

said T.Bandaiah, he was reinstated into service on 13.09.2013 by the

third respondent pending finalization of the disciplinary proceedings.

After completion of the enquiry, he was imposed with the punishment of

withholding one increment without cumulative effect for a period of one

year, inspite of charges leveled against him were proved. But, in case of

the petitioner, though, she has submitted her explanation stating that

due to oversight and lack of experience, the mistake was happened, the

second respondent has acted selectively and removed her from service

vide impugned proceedings. Further, the punishment of removal is

disproportionate to the gravity of the charge leveled against her.

8. In Tata Engineering and Locomotives Co. Ltd. v. Jitendra

Pd.Singh 1, the Hon'ble Apex Court held as under:

"who are facing similar set of charges and proved against them, there cannot be parity in punishments."

9. In K.Rajendra Prasad v. State of Andhra Pradesh 2, a Division

Bench of this Court in similar circumstances passed orders and the

operative portion of the said order reads as under:

"...Hence, this Court is of the considered view by following the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Naresh Chandra Bhardwaj that the punishment of dismissal as imposed by the respondents on the petitioner deserves to be modified to that of compulsory retirement because the disciplinary authority must consider the parity of punishments while imposing on the other two employees. Therefore, for the reasons stated above, this Court is of the considered view that the punishment as imposed by the disciplinary authority be modified to that of compulsory retirement."

10. In view of the above, this Court is of the opinion that, the above

judgment is squarely applicable to the facts of the present case.

In the present case also, the respondents singled out the petitioner by

imposing the punishment of removal from service and the individual,

who faced similar charges that of the petitioner and against whom the

charges were proved, was imposed with lesser punishment of withholding

one increment without cumulative effect for a period of one year. The

disciplinary authority must consider the parity of punishments when two

(2001) 10 SCC 530

Unreported judgment in WP.No.26726 of 2011, dated 30.11.2022

employees are facing similar charges. Therefore, the impugned order is

liable to be set aside.