Telangana High Court
G. Vijayinder Reddy, Medak District vs The Vice Chairman, Hyderabad And 2 ... on 21 March, 2025
Author: P.Sree Sudha
Bench: P.Sree Sudha
THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE P.SREE SUDHA
WRIT PETITION No.17920 of 2005
ORDER:
This writ petition is filed by the petitioner requesting the
Court to call for the records pertaining to the charge sheet
No.21516/PW/APIIC/E3/98, dated 04.01.1999 and set aside
the punishment of stoppage of one increment with cumulative
effect and consequently to direct the respondents to grant all
the incidental and consequential benefits to the petitioner.
2. Learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Counsel
for respondents are present. Heard arguments of both sides.
3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner stated that petitioner
joined in the respondent Corporation as an Accounts Clerk in
the year 1982. During the year 1998, a memo was issued
against him with five charges vide Memo
No.2156/PW/APIIC/E3/98, dated 18.04.1998. Apart from the
post of Accountant, he was holding a full additional charge of
Senior Assistant, at the Zonal Office, Chandulal Baradari. As a
result of the full additional charge of the Senior Assistant, he
was in-charge of Industrial Estate, Chandulal Baradari, IDA,
Kottur and Industrial Housing Complex, Chandulal Baradari,
which was having heavy work load. The charge made against
him is that there was delay of 5 days to 5 months in remittance
of total amount of Rs.808/-. He also stated that petitioner
received an amount of Rs.10,000/- through cheque on
01.09.1995 and the same was deposited in the Bank on the
same day, but receipt was not issued due to work pressure and
oversight. As per Clause A1.1 of Zonal Accounts Manual, for
every collection made, there should be a proper receipt issued to
the party from whom the amount is collected. It was a bona fide
mistake and there was no willful negligence on the part of the
petitioner. Except charge No.1, all other charges i.e., charges
No.2 to 5 are dropped by Disciplinary Authority after
considering the explanation submitted by the petitioner and
imposed penalty of stoppage of one increment with cumulative
effect, against which he preferred the present writ petition.
4. In the counter filed by the respondents, they stated that
petitioner while working as Senior Accountant in the erstwhile
Chandulal Baradari Zone was also the in-charge of maintenance
of cash book for Cash Book Non-operative Collection Account.
During inspection and verification of cash book for the period
from 29.12.1997 to 01.02.1998 by the internal audit, certain
irregularities in the transactions of cash and cheques were
noticed and framed five charges against the petitioner. Out of
five charges, except Charge No.1, all other charges were
dropped. For delay in remittance of Rs.808/- in the Bank
ranged between 5 days to 5 months, they imposed penalty of
stoppage of one increment with cumulative effect as it amounts
to temporary misappropriation of the cash. In fact, petitioner
admitted the said charge. After considering the explanation of
the petitioner, proper punishment was imposed upon him. In
the appeal also they reviewed his request and observed that
there was no necessity for revising the punishment as he
requires financial discipline and the punishment imposed upon
him is reasonable and was imposed after following due
procedure. Therefore, requested the Court to dismiss the
present writ petition.
5. Learned Counsel for respondents further relied upon the
decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of U.P.State
Road Transport Corporation Vs.Vinod Kumar, 1 in which it
was held as follows:
"As stated in the preceding paragraphs, the respondent
had confined his case only to the conclusions reached by
the enquiry officer as well as the quantum of punishment.
Therefore, since the respondent had not challenged the
correctness, legality or validity of the inquiry conducted, it
(2008) 1 SCC 115
was not open to the Labour Court to go into the findings
recorded by the enquiry officer regarding the misconduct
committed by the respondent. This Court in a number of
judgments has held that the punishment of
removal/dismissal is the appropriate punishment for an
employee found guilty of misappropriation of funds; and
the courts should be reluctant to reduce the punishment on
misplaced sympathy for a workman. That, there is nothing
wrong in the employer losing confidence or faith in such an
employee and awarding punishment of dismissal. That, in
such cases, there is no place for generosity or misplaced
sympathy on the part of the judicial forums and interfering
with the quantum of punishment. Without burdening the
judgment with all the judgments of this Court on this point,
we may only refer to a recent judgment in Divisional
Controller, N.E.K.R.T.C. v. H. Amaresh [(2006) 6 SCC 187 :
2006 SCC (L&S) 1290] wherein this Court, after taking into
account the earlier decisions, held in para 18 as under:
18. In the instant case, the misappropriation of the
funds by the delinquent employee was only Rs
360.95. This Court has considered the punishment
that may be awarded to the delinquent employees
who misappropriated the funds of the Corporation
and the factors to be considered. This Court in a
catena of judgments held that the loss of confidence
is the primary factor and not the amount of money
misappropriated and that the sympathy or
generosity cannot be a factor which is impermissible
in law. When an employee is found guilty of
pilferage or of misappropriating the Corporation's
funds, there is nothing wrong in the Corporation
losing confidence or faith in such an employee and
awarding punishment of dismissal. In such cases,
there is no place for generosity or misplaced
sympathy on the part of the judicial forums and
interfering therefore with the quantum of
punishment. The judgment in Karnataka SRTC v.
B.S. Hullikatti [(2001) 2 SCC 574 : 2001 SCC (L&S)
469] was also relied on in this judgment among
others. Examination of the passengers of the vehicle
from whom the said sum was collected was also not
essential. In our view, possession of the said excess
sum of money on the part of the respondent, a fact
proved, is itself a misconduct and hence the Labour
Court and the learned Judges of the High Court
misdirected themselves in insisting on the evidence
of the passengers which is wholly not essential.
This apart, the respondent did not have any
explanation for having carried the said excess
amount. This omission was sufficient to hold him
guilty. This act was so grossly negligent that the
respondent was not fit to be retained as a conductor
because such action or inaction of his was bound to
result in financial loss to the appellant irrespective
of the quantum."
6. Considering the fact that petitioner was in-charge of other
post, this Court finds that non-remittance of amount of
Rs.808/- for a period of 5 days to 5 months cannot be
considered as a grave mistake and also finds that it is just and
reasonable to modify the penalty of stoppage of one increment
with cumulative effect to the stoppage of one increment without
cumulative effect.
7. In the result, the present writ petition is partly allowed by
modifying the penalty of stoppage of one increment with
cumulative effect to the stoppage of one increment without
cumulative effect. There shall be no order as to costs.
Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand
closed.
_________________________
JUSTICE P.SREE SUDHA
DATE: 21.03.2025
tri
THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE P.SREE SUDHA
WRIT PETITION No.17920 of 2005
DATE: 21.03.2025
TRI
