Telangana High Court
T. Hemanth Kumar Singh vs The Union Of India, Ministry Of Railways on 7 November, 2024
Author: Abhinand Kumar Shavili
Bench: Abhinand Kumar Shavili
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI
AND
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY
WRIT PETITIONS Nos.21182 of 2013 & 15893 of 2014
COMMON ORDER:
(per Hon'ble Sri Justice Abhinand Kumar Shavili)
Since the issue involved in both the Writ Petitions is one and
the same, they are heard together and being disposed of by
common order.
2. Writ Petition No.21182 of 2013 is filed by the Union of
India, Ministry of Railways, aggrieved by the order, dated
23.04.2013, passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal,
Hyderabad Bench, Hyderabad (hereinafter referred to as
'Tribunal') in O.A.No.1350 of 2010.
3. Writ Petition No.15893 of 2014 is filed by the employee
aggrieved by the order, dated 23.04.2013, passed by the Tribunal in
O.A.No.1350 of 2010, only to the extent of treating his out of
service period as dies-non.
4. Heard Sri D.V.Seetharam Murthy, learned senior counsel
appearing for Sri C.Aravind, learned counsel on record for the
petitioner, in W.P.No.15893 of 2014 and Smt Anjali Agarwal,
2 AKS, J & LNA, J
WP.Nos.21182 of 2013 &
15893 of 2014
learned Standing Counsel for Central Government appearing for
the petitioners in W.P.No.21182 of 2013.
5. For convenience, hereinafter, the parties will be referred to
as they are arrayed in WP.No.21182 of 2013 and the facts in
W.P.No.21182 of 2013 are hereunder discussed.
6. It has been contended by the petitioners that the respondent
was initially appointed as Probationary Ticket Collector in South
Central Railway on 06.11.1980; that after completing the initial
training course, he was absorbed as Ticket Collector; that while he
was discharging his duties as such, on the intervening night of
18/19-11-1995, it was found that he indulged in collecting an
excess amount of Rs.1,957/- illegally from the passengers; that a
criminal case was registered against the respondent under the
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, vide C.C.No.14 of 1996
before the Special Court for CBI Cases, Visakhapatnam (for
brevity, hereinafter referred to as 'the Special Court') and the
Special Court, vide judgment dated 31.12.1997, convicted the
respondent for the offences under Sections 403, 465 and 471 IPC
and sentenced him to pay fine of Rs.500/- for each of the said
3 AKS, J & LNA, J
WP.Nos.21182 of 2013 &
15893 of 2014
offences and further, he was sentenced to suffer rigorous
imprisonment for two years and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/-, in
default, to undergo simple imprisonment for three months for the
offence under Section 13(1)(i)(ii) r/w 13(2) of the Prevention of
Corruption Act, 1988. Aggrieved by the said conviction orders, the
respondent preferred Criminal Appeal No.30 of 1998 before this
Court and this Court, vide judgment dated 07.03.2003, was pleased
to set aside the conviction imposed on the respondent by the
Special Court and remanded the case to the Special Court for fresh
consideration.
7. Learned Standing Counsel for the petitioners further
contended that consequent upon conviction of the respondent by
the Special Court, he was dismissed from service vide proceedings
dated 21.03.1998 and when this Court set aside the conviction of
the respondent in Criminal Appeal and remanded the matter to the
Special Court, the petitioners have reinstated the respondent into
service on 09.12.2003 and finally, the respondent was acquitted by
the Special Court, vide judgment dated 04.02.2005 in CC.No.14 of
1996. As the Special Court has not given clean acquittal to the
4 AKS, J & LNA, J
WP.Nos.21182 of 2013 &
15893 of 2014
respondent, the disciplinary authority had initiated disciplinary
proceedings against the respondent and issued a charge memo
dated 08.06.2006 to the respondent; that in all two articles of
charges were framed against the respondent and in the enquiry, the
respondent except making a representation that he would submit
his defence statement, has not chosen to submit the same; that the
enquiry officer has submitted a report dated 14.05.2009, holding
that the charges are proved and based upon the proven misconduct,
the disciplinary authority has imposed the punishment of removal
from service on the respondent and thereafter, the respondent has
unsuccessfully preferred Appeal and later, challenged the orders of
removal before the Tribunal by filing O.A.No.1350 of 2010 and the
Tribunal, without appreciating any of the contentions raised by the
petitioners, was pleased to allow the O.A. in favour of the
respondent vide orders dated 23.04.2013 and directed the
petitioners to reinstate the respondent into service within a period
of three months from the date of passing of the said order.
8. Learned Standing Counsel for the petitioners further
contended that in the impugned order, the Tribunal has re-
5 AKS, J & LNA, J
WP.Nos.21182 of 2013 &
15893 of 2014
appreciated the evidence as though it is sitting as an appellate
authority, which is not permissible, and interfered with the orders
of removal and therefore, she prayed that appropriate orders be
passed in Writ Petition No.21182 of 2013 by setting aside the
impugned order of the Tribunal.
9. Learned Standing Counsel for the petitioners further
contended that the issue whether the Tribunal and High Court can
re-appreciate the evidence as though sitting as an appellate
authority was considered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in The
State of Karnataka Vs. Umesh 1 and contended that the Hon'ble
Supreme Court has held that the Tribunal cannot sit as an appellate
authority and re-appreciate the evidence and therefore, the
impugned order passed by the Tribunal is liable to be set aside.
10. On the other hand, learned senior counsel appearing for the
respondent contended that the respondent was acquitted by the
Special Court and on the very same allegations, the disciplinary
authority had initiated disciplinary proceedings and imposed major
punishment of removal from service on the respondent. He further
2022(6) SCC 563
6 AKS, J & LNA, J
WP.Nos.21182 of 2013 &
15893 of 2014
submitted that the issue raised in the present case is squarely
covered by the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
G.M.Tank Vs. State of Gujarat 2 and Ram Lal Vs. State of
Rajasthan and others 3, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has
held that if an employee is acquitted in a criminal case, the
question of imposing punishment in a domestic enquiry on the very
same charges would not arise. He further contended that the
Tribunal, after examining the case, came to a conclusion that the
charges levelled against the respondent could not be proved,
however, the Tribunal has treated the out of employment period as
dies-non. He submitted that the Tribunal erred in treating the out of
employment period as dies-non, at best, the said aspect of treating
the out of employment period should have been left open to the
disciplinary authority.
11. Learned counsel for the respondent further informed the
Court that the respondent has attained the age of superannuation on
28.02.2017, i.e., during the pendency of the present Writ Petitions
and therefore, interfering with the orders of the Tribunal at this
(2006) 5 SCC 446
2023 SCC Online SC 1618
7 AKS, J & LNA, J
WP.Nos.21182 of 2013 &
15893 of 2014
point of time may not be feasible. Therefore, he contended that
there are no merits in Writ Petition No.21182 of 2013 and the same
is liable to be dismissed and Writ Petition filed by the respondent
i.e., W.P.No.15893 of 2014 has to be allowed and the portion of
impugned order of the Tribunal treating the out of employment
period of the respondent as dies-non is liable to be set aside and the
said period shall be dealt with by the disciplinary authority.
12. This Court, having regard to the rival submissions made by
learned counsel for both the parties, is of the considered view that
the Tribunal has interfered with the punishment of removal by
re-appreciating the evidence, but in the light of the judgment of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in Umesh's case (1st cited supra), the
Tribunal was not justified in re-appreciating the evidence.
However, the fact remains that the respondent was tried and
acquitted by the Special Court for the charges levelled therein and
on the very same set of allegations and charges, the disciplinary
authority has initiated disciplinary proceedings. Therefore, the
issue raised in the present Writ Petitions is squarely covered by the
8 AKS, J & LNA, J
WP.Nos.21182 of 2013 &
15893 of 2014
judgments rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in G.M.Tank's
case (2nd cited supra) and Ram Lal's case (3rd cited supra).
13. It is also noticed that the respondent has attained the age of
superannuation on 20.02.2017 and therefore, the only issue that
remains for consideration is whether the respondent should be paid
the terminal benefits. Therefore, this court is not inclined to
interfere with the impugned order passed by the Tribunal.
14. Accordingly, W.P.No.21182 of 2013 filed by the Union of
India, Ministry of Railways, is dismissed.
15. Insofar as W.P.No.15893 of 2014 filed by the employee is
concerned, the same is allowed in part and the portion of impugned
order of the Tribunal directing to treat the out of employment
period of the respondent as dies-non is set aside and the
disciplinary authority is directed to treat out of employment period
of the respondent in accordance with the Rules. Further, it is held
that the respondent is entitled to all the benefits consequent upon
setting aside of the removal orders by the Tribunal. No costs.
9 AKS, J & LNA, J
WP.Nos.21182 of 2013 &
15893 of 2014
16. As a sequel, Miscellaneous Petitions pending, if any, shall
stand closed.
_______________________________
ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI, J
___________________________________
LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY, J
Dated:07.11.2024
dr
