Telangana High Court
The Chairman And Managing Director, ... vs K. S. Ravi Kumar on 30 July, 2024
THE HON'BLE JUSTICE MOUSHUMI BHATTACHARYA
AND
THE HON'BLE JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI
WRIT APPEAL.No.1020 OF 2018
JUDGMENT:
(Per Hon'ble Justice Moushumi Bhattacharya)
The Writ Appeal arises out of an order dated 04.01.2018 passed by
the learned Single Judge of this Court in a Writ Petition filed by the
respondent herein challenging the order issued by the Superintending
Engineer, Operation/appellant No.5 dated 10.02.2005. The respondents
in the Writ Petitions (appellants before this Court) are officials of the
Andhra Pradesh Central Power Distribution Company Limited (APCPDCL)
which is now known the Telangana South Power Distribution Company
Limited (TSSPDCL).
2. The Divisional Engineer (Elec & Operative)/appellant No.6 had
ordered stoppage of 2 increments of the writ petitioner with cumulative
effect and treated the suspension period undergone by the writ petitioner
from 01.06.2001 to the date of joining duty on reinstatement as
"suspension". The writ petitioner challenged this order before the
Superintending Engineer, Operation/appellant No.5 and by order dated
10.02.2005, the Appellate Authority reduced the punishment to stoppage
of 2 increments without cumulative effect but treated the suspension
period as "suspension".
MB,J & MGP,J
3. The writ petitioner filed W.P.No.8932 of 2005 in this Court which
was disposed of by way of the impugned order setting aside the part of
the order dated 10.02.2005 i.e., treating the period of suspension as
"suspension". The learned Single Judge directed that the said
"suspension" period should be treated as "spent on duty".
4. The appellants/TSSPDCL authorities have challenged the order
dated 04.01.2018 of the learned Single Judge in this Appeal.
5. A few more factual details relevant to the Appeal are necessary
although the background has been stated above.
6. The writ petitioner worked as Assistant Lineman in the Central
Breakdown Division of the appellant authorities. A criminal case was
registered against the writ petitioner in April 2001 pursuant to the
inspection of the premises of a consumer of electricity where it was found
that the Electricity Meter and sealed wire had been tampered with and
there was theft of electricity. The writ petitioner was arrested for the
commission of the alleged offence and released on bail. The writ
petitioner was suspended and the appellant No.1 appointed the
Divisional Engineer (Elec & Enquiries)/appellant No.8 as Enquiry Officer.
The writ petitioner was acquitted in the criminal case on 03.12.2003 and
the Divisional Engineer (Elec & Enquiries)/appellant No.8 submitted a
report exonerating the writ petitioner of the charges. The Divisional
Engineer (Elec & Operation)/appellant No.6 however issued a Show
MB,J & MGP,J
Cause Notice dated 31.01.2004 to the writ petitioner to which the writ
petitioner furnished his explanation on 11.02.2004. The writ petitioner
thereafter filed W.P.No.13453 of 2004 seeking reinstatement with all
consequential benefits. The said writ petition was disposed of directing
the Divisional Engineer (Elec & Operation)/appellant No.6 to pass
appropriate orders in the pending enquiry. The Divisional Engineer (Elec
& Operation)/appellant No.6 passed an order on 20.09.2004 awarding
the punishment of stoppage of 2 increments with cumulative effect and
treating the period of suspension as "suspension".
7. The writ petitioner filed an Appeal before the Superintending
Engineer (Operation) who modified the punishment of stoppage of 2
increments without cumulative effect but did not interfere with the other
part of the order i.e., treating the period of suspension as "suspension".
8. The writ petitioner filed W.P.No.8932 of 2005 which was disposed
of by the learned Single Judge by way of the impugned order dated
04.01.2018.
9. The learned Single Judge relied on A.V. Vinod Kumar Vs. Executive
Committee of the Central Ware Housing Corporation, New Delhi 1to hold
that in case of minor penalties, the period of suspension should be
treated as "spent on duty".
12007 5 ALD 445
MB,J & MGP,J
10. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants relies on Regulation
57(1) of the Andhra Pradesh State Electricity Board (APSEB) Service
Regulations, Part-I amended up to 30.04.2016, to urge that the authority
competent to order reinstatement is empowered to make a specific order
as to whether the period of suspension shall be treated as "period spent
on duty": Regulation 57(1)(c). Counsel submits that the writ petitioner
has not presented any grounds to claim the period of suspension as
"spent on duty" in the face of the Regulations.
11. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent/writ petitioner relies
on A.V. Vinod Kumar (supra) as well as a decision of a Division Bench of
the Madras High Court in The Principal Secretary, Government of Tamil
Nadu, Department of Home Vs. Mr.K.Muthukaruppan, IPS 2 to urge that
minor punishment cannot result in the orders passed by the Enquiry
Officer and the Appellate Authority to the extent of treating the period of
suspension as "suspension".
12. The only point which falls for adjudication in the Appeal is whether
the writ petitioner is entitled to an order treating the period of suspension
from 01.06.2001 to the date of reinstatement i.e., the period of
suspension, as "spent on duty".
13. It is not in dispute that the writ petitioner was exonerated of the
charges of theft of electricity and tampering of Electricity Meter and
22015 SCC OnLine Mad 1360 8
MB,J & MGP,J
sealed wire by the Divisional Engineer (Elec & Operation)/ appellant No.6
and the Superintending Engineer (Operation)/appellant No.5 on
20.09.2004 and 10.02.2005 which would be evident from the 2 orders
passed by the concerned authorities.
14. The 1st order specifically records that the writ petitioner advised the
consumer to change the Meter upon finding the same to be sluggish and
also reported the said fact to the concerned authority. The 2nd order
concludes that the petitioner was guilty of negligence having failed in his
duty to record the Meter in the Meter Observation Record or having the
Meter tested by the concerned wing of the respondents. It was on this
finding that the Appellant Authority/Superintending Engineer
(Operation)/appellant No.5 reduced the punishment awarded by the
Divisional Engineer (Elec & Operation)/appellant No.6 for stoppage of 2
increments without cumulative effect. The most important fact was that
the writ petitioner was acquitted from the criminal charges on
03.12.2003. Such acquittal means that the petitioner emerged clean and
fully-vindicated from the offence of theft of electricity and tampering of
the Meter. Both the orders passed by the 1st forum and the 2nd forum
were subsequent to the acquittal. However, there is no evidence in the
orders of the acquittal having any bearing on the withholding of
increments or treating the concerned period as "suspension".
MB,J & MGP,J
15. Reading both the orders together, it is clear that the authorities
proceeded only on the charge of 'negligence' and hence punished the writ
petitioner by withholding 2 increments on a cumulative, and later, on a
non-cumulative basis. We are however of the view that the appellant
authorities' decision to treat the period of suspension as "suspension" as
opposed to "on duty" amounts to a severe punishment. Treating the
period as "suspension" would not only constitute a break in service
affecting seniority and other consequential benefits but would also be
contrary to the minor punishment in terms of withholding of 2
increments on non-cumulative basis.
16. We do not find any justification recorded in either of the 2 orders
for awarding a severe punishment such as treating the period as
"suspension" particularly where the admitted offences for which the
punishment was imposed was negligence of duty in reporting a sluggish
Meter.
17. The Division Bench of the Madras High Court in The Principal
Secretary, Government of Tamil Nadu (supra) considered a line of
decisions on the aspect of the entitlement to arrears and allowances and
other benefits during the period of suspension. The Division Bench relied
on Y.P. Sehgal Vs. State of Punjab 3, (decision of a Division Bench of the
Bombay High Court), and on A.V. Vinod Kumar (supra) to hold that the
3(1991) 1 SLR 583 (P&H) (DB)
MB,J & MGP,J
consistent view of the Courts has been to the effect that imposition of
minor penalty would warrant the period of suspension being treated as
"on duty".
18. We do not find any reason to depart from the consensus arrived at
by the Courts and particularly in the facts of the present Appeal where
the 2nd forum/Appellate Authority reduced the punishment imposed by
the 1st forum upon revisiting the relevant facts. Our view is reinforced by
the writ petitioner's acquittal from the criminal case, which would also
prove that the writ petitioner's alleged offence was only with regard to the
negligence of duty and not a criminal offence of theft of electricity.
19. The appellants' reliance on Regulation 57(1)(c) of the APSEB Service
Regulations is not of relevance since the said Regulations only point to
the jurisdiction of a competent authority making an order with regard to
treating the period of suspension as "spent on duty". Principal Secretary,
Government of Tamil Nadu (supra) considered a similar Rule -
"Fundamental Rule 54 B of the All India Service (Discipline and Appeal)
Rules" contained a similar provision with regard to a competent authority
ruling the nature of the period of suspension. Rule 57(1)(c) only satisfies
the authority or the competent person to decide on the tag of the 'period
of suspension' but leaves it wholly on the discretion of the competent
authority. Needless to say, Article 226(1) of The Constitution of India
guarantees protection and enforcement of Fundamental Rights by
MB,J & MGP,J
issuance of writs against a person or authority for violation of these
Rights. Article 226 essentially provides protection against arbitrary
action on the part of the State/State Authority.
20. The decisions placed by the appellants, namely, Management of
Reserve Bank of India, New Delhi Vs. Bhopal Singh Panchal 4, and
Ranchhodji Chaturji Thakore Vs. Superintending Engineer, Gujarat 5 relate
to an individual's right to pay and allowances and whether an order of
suspension is automatically set-aside on reinstatement. In Management
of Reserve Bank of India, New Delhi (supra), the Supreme Court however
held that the question whether the period to be treated as a "leave" or "on
duty" would depend on the circumstances of each case and that full
acquittal of blame should be held as being "on duty" during the period of
suspension. It should also be mentioned that in both cases, the conduct
of the concerned employee weighed with the Supreme Court with regard
to involvement in criminal offences.
21. We accordingly do not find any infirmity in the impugned order
passed by the learned Single Judge. Our view for upholding the
impugned order dated 04.01.2018 and the reasons for the same are
stated in the paragraphs above.
1994 1 SCC 541
1996 11 SCC 603
MB,J & MGP,J
22. We are aghast that the writ petitioner has been waiting for justice
from 20.09.2004, even after the impugned order of 04.01.2018 i.e., for a
period of 20 years at worst and 6 years at best.
23. W.A.No.1020 of 2018 along with all connected applications is
dismissed on the above basis. The appellant authorities and the
concerned officers thereof are directed to treat the period of suspension of
the writ petitioner during the period 01.06.2001 - 22.09.2004 (the
appellants have mentioned the date of reinstatement as 22.09.2004 at
paragraph No.11 in the Grounds of Appeal) as "on duty" and make all
arrears of payments and grant all consequential benefits including
seniority to the respondent/writ petitioner for the said period. The
appellants shall make payment of the arrears and other consequential
benefits to the respondent/writ petitioner within 6 weeks from the date of
this judgment. The appellants shall also correct and make good any
denial of benefits, including that of seniority, within 6 weeks from the
date of this judgment.
There shall be no order as to costs.
______________________________________
MOUSHUMI BHATTACHARYA, J
_______________________________
M.G.PRIYADARSINI, J
July 30, 2024
BMS
