Dismissed

The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its v. G.Sreeramulu, S/o G.Musalappa

Andhra Pradesh HC22 Mar 2021WP/15144/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court dismissed writ petitions challenging the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal's order that modified a penalty for a police employee. The Tribunal upheld guilt but reduced the punishment from a two-year postponement to one increment, categorizing the delay in returning material objects as negligence rather than intentional misconduct.

What did the court decide?

All writ petitions dismissed. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, stand closed.

The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Andhra Pradesh HC (2021)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE JOYMALYA BAGCHI AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE M.GANGA RAO

¶2

WRIT PETITION Nos.15144 of 2015, 15136 of 2015, 41824 and 41833 of 2018

¶3

(Taken up through video conferencing)

¶4

COMMON ORDER: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice Joymalya Bagchi)

¶5

All the writ petitions are taken up for hearing together as the challenge is to the same order i.e., order dated 06.12.2013 in O.A.No.6265 of 2012 whereby the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal at Hyderabad (for short, ‘the Tribunal’) while upholding the guilt of the delinquent employee had modified the penalty from postponement of increments for two years with effect on future increments and pension to postponement of one increment without cumulative effect.

¶6

While in W.P.Nos.15144 and 15136 of 2015 the State has assailed the reduction of penalty, the confirmation of guilt has been assailed by the delinquent employee in W.P.Nos.41824 and 41833 of 2018.

¶7

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶8

The factual matrix of the case is to the effect that the delinquent employee was issued a charge memo alleging as follows:

¶9

“Exhibited gross neglect of duty in complying the instructions of the superiors when he pass ported to Tirupathi on RFSL Duty to handover the material objects of RFSL, later he did not come to the PS to hand over the RFSL receipt in the PS and still the connected records are with him.”

¶10

Enquiry officer was appointed and in the course of enquiry he examined the Sub-Inspector of Police, Gummagatta Police Station and submitted a report holding the charge as proved guilty

¶11

¶12

of misconduct. Explanation was sought from the delinquent employee. After considering the explanation offered the disciplinary authority vide order dated 12.02.2011 held the employee guilty of misconduct and imposed a penalty of postponement of increments for two years with effect on future increments and pension and further directed the period of suspension to be treated as not on duty. The appellate authority also dismissed the appeal. Hence, the delinquent employee challenged the aforesaid order before the Tribunal in O.A.No.6265 of 2012. Upon considering the contentions of the parties, the Tribunal by impugned order while upholding the guilt of the delinquent employee, observed that his conduct was merely negligent and altered the penalty imposed on him to postponement of one increment without cumulative effect. The Tribunal also directed the period of suspension to be treated as on duty for the purpose of increments, seniority and pensionary benefits but not for monetary benefits except subsistence allowance.

¶13

We have considered the materials on record.

¶14

Disciplinary authority after giving adequate opportunity to the delinquent employee to submit explanation to the enquiry report had come to a finding of guilt which came to be upheld by the appellate authority. No procedural irregularity or breach of natural justice is evinced from the facts of the case. Only issue which was agitated before the Tribunal by the delinquent employee was that he was ill and therefore, there was delay in deposit of material objects for RFSL. Though the Tribunal was not convinced with such explanation, as the materials were ultimately deposited at police station, came to a finding that the delay in depositing the

¶15

¶16

materials was not intentional and may be categorised as negligence in duty. We are of the opinion the view taken by the Tribunal in the factual matrix of the case is a reasonable one and does not call for interference. On such premise, the Tribunal reduced the punishment imposed on the delinquent.

¶17

Although interference in matters of punishment are rarely done, in the present case, as the Tribunal was of the view that the act of the delinquent employee was not motivated by evil intention but one of negligence, such reduction appears to be justified and does not call for interference. More so, more than a decade has passed since the date of incident. Hence, we do not choose to interfere with the order passed by the Tribunal.

¶18

The Writ Petitions are accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs.

¶19

As a sequel, Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in the Writ Petitions shall stand closed.

¶20

______________________________ JUSTICE JOYMALYA BAGCHI

¶21

_________________________ JUSTICE M.GANGA RAO

¶22

Date: 22.03.2021 Ivd

The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its v. G.Sreeramulu, S/o G.Musalappa

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its v. G.Sreeramulu, S/o G.Musalappa

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

G.Sreeramulu Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

The State of Andhra Pradesh, Vs G.Sreenunulu

G.Sreeramulu Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh