Telangana High Court

The Additional Collector / Pic ... vs A.Rajaram Reddy, on 2 May, 2025

     THE HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE SUJOY PAUL
                           AND
          THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE RENUKA YARA

                    WRIT APPEAL No.536 of 2025

JUDGMENT:

(Per the Hon'ble the Acting Chief Justice Sujoy Paul)

Sri Chidagam Srinivas, learned counsel appearing for

Sri K.Vasudeva Reddy, learned counsel for the appellants and

Sri Baglekar Akash Kumar, learned counsel or respondent No.1.

2. With the consent, finally heard.

3. This intra Court appeal takes exception to the order of a

learned Single Judge passed in W.P.No.4307 of 2024 dated

27.02.2025.

4. The brief facts necessary for adjudication of this writ appeal

are that the respondent No.1/writ petitioner was subjected to

disciplinary proceedings which ended with punishment of

dismissal from service on 13.06.2011. Aggrieved, respondent No.1

filed W.P.No.22240 of 2012 assailing the said punishment. The

said writ petition was disposed of on 18.07.2023 holding that the

punishment of dismissal is disproportionate in nature and

accordingly, the competent authority was directed to reconsider

the punishment of dismissal within a stipulated time. This order

of writ Court was unsuccessfully challenged in W.A.No.881 of

2023 which came to be dismissed on 08.09.2023.

5. In obedience of this Court's order in W.P.No.22240 of 2012,

the competent authority passed the order dated 23.01.2024 and

modified the punishment as under:-

"That the Period of dismissal of Sri A.Rajaram Reddy from the Service of KCUB as Chief Executive Officer, from 13-06-2011 to the date of Joining in the Lower grade in service or post is treated as "Dies-non" and no Salary/remuneration for that period shall be paid to him. An undertaking to the effect that he will not claim any salary of service benefits for the said period, shall be produced before admitting him in to duty.

Sri.A.Rajaram Reddy is reinstated as Accountant/B.M. in the Service of KCUB, on reduction in rank to a Lower grade in Service, while on reversion from the post of the Chief Executive Officer, in obedience to the orders of the Hon'ble High Court in W.P No. 22240 of 2012 and in W.A. No. 881 of 2023."

(Emphasis supplied)

6. Assailing this modified punishment, the instant writ petition

i.e., W.P.No.4307 of 2024 was filed. After hearing both the

parties, the learned Single Judge passed the following order:-

"20. A perusal of the record shows that out of 16 charges, 12 were held to be proved against the petitioner by the Enquiry Officer, which only shows that a major portion of the charges

were proved. Moreover, a perusal of the judgment in C.C.No.178 of 2013 shows that the petitioner was acquitted by giving the benefit of doubt, but not a clean acquittal. There is no dispute that the petitioner is a physically challenged person and he was out of employment during the period from 13.06.2011 to 02.02.2024 and though the petitioner requested for payment of back wages, the respondents have denied the back wages during the said period. As stated in previous paras, in the absence of any provision, the imposition of punishment of "dies-non and no salary/remuneration" is contrary to the said Rule 19(ii) as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Vijay Singh (2nd supra). In those circumstances, the petitioner cannot be declined of back wages. However, he is not entitled to get full payment of back wages.

21. Thus, the respondents are directed to pay back wages to the petitioner @ 50% of the net salary in the present post i.e. Accountant/B.M. from 13.06.2011 to 01.02.2024 within a period of two (02) months from the date of a copy of this order."

(Emphasis supplied)

The present intra Court appeal is directed against this order.

7. The learned counsel for the appellants submits that the

learned single Judge was not justified in granting 50% back wages

to respondent No.1 for the interregnum period between

13.06.2011 to 01.02.2024 (the period between the previous

punishment of dismissal and modified punishment of reduction in

rank to a lower grade).

8. Learned counsel for respondent No.1 submits that once the

punishment order is modified, such modification should relate

back to the date of original punishment.

9. No other point is pressed by the learned counsel for the

parties.

10. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length

and perused the record.

11. The admitted facts are that the earlier punishment was

found to be excessive in nature and therefore, the competent

authority, in obedience of this Court's order, 'substituted' or

'modified' the punishment by order dated 23.01.2024. In other

words, since punishment of dismissal was held to be

inappropriate, the substituted punishment was imposed.

12. In our considered opinion, the said substituted punishment

must relate back to the date of original punishment. A Division

Bench of Madhya Pradesh High Court, to which one of us (SP,J)

was a member, in Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. v.

Kailash Chandra 1 opined as under:-

"35.The ancillary question is whether while rightly setting aside the punishment of dismissal and while remanding the matter for reconsideration, the learned Single Judge was justified in directing reinstatement with back wages. We do not think learned single Judge followed right course. In a matter of this nature where punishment of dismissal is set aside and matter is remanded back to the disciplinary authority to impose any other punishment (mentioned in para 17 of impugned judgment) the only course open to the learned Single Judge was to observe that the substituted penalty imposed by the disciplinary authority shall take place of punishment of dismissal from due date and all benefits arising out of said substituted punishment will ensue. To this extent, we find considerable force in the argument of learned counsel for appellants that learned Single Judge has gone wrong in directing reinstatement with salary, increments and other benefits. These benefits will depend upon the nature of substituted punishments. We find support in our view from (2015) 2 SCC 610 Union of India v. P. Gunasekaran. Para 25 reads thus:-

"25. The last contention is with regard to date of effect of the punishment. According to the respondent, even assuming that compulsory retirement is to be imposed, it could be only with effect from the date of order viz. 28-2- 2000. We are unable to appreciate the contention. The respondent stood dismissed from service as per order dated 10.6.1997. It was that punishment which was directed to be reconsidered. Consequent thereon only, the punishment was altered/substituted to compulsory retirement. Necessarily, it has to be from the date of dismissal from service viz, 10.6.1997."

(Emphasis supplied)

2021 SCC OnLine MP 3385

13. This judgment of Madhya Pradesh High Court is based on

the judgment of Supreme Court in Union of India v

P.Gunasekaran 2. Any other view, in our judgment, will lead to

absurdity. Putting it differently, if the argument of learned

counsel for the appellants is accepted, the result would be that

from the initial date of punishment, till the modified date of

punishment, the respondent No.1 shall be suffering the

punishment of dismissal from service and from passing of the

order dated 23.01.2024, he will be suffering another punishment

of reduction in rank. As per the settled legal position in service