A writ petitioner challenged the Central Administrative Tribunal's order reducing a removal from service penalty to a two-year recruitment debarment for a nominal misappropriation. The Court held the tribunal justified the modification as rational and proportional. Accordingly, the writ petition was dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction)
WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR
PRESENT
THE HON’BLE SRi JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY
WRIT PETITION NO: 30031 OF 2013
Between:
...PETITIONERS
AND
...RESPONDENTS
Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue an order or direction more particularly in the nature of writ of Certiorari calling for the records pertaining to order dated 19j6|.2013 in OA.No.604 of 2011 of the Hon'ble Central Administrative Tribunal Hyderabad Bench, Hyderabad and quash the same as illegal, arbitrary.
r
I.A. NO: 1 OF 2013(WPMP. NO: 37266 OF 2013)
Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in thecircumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be % pleaded to suspend the order in OA.No.604 of 2011 dated 19.6.2013 on ’ -i'. ;:;th^fj:le of Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench pending di'spdsdl of the above writ petition.
I.A. NO: 1 OF 2015(WVMP. NO: 4678 OF 2015)
Between:
D.Srinivas, S/o.D.Suryalingam (Late), Ex.Gramin DakSevakBranch Postmaster,Jambupatnam BO a/w Korukonda SO-533289.
...PETITIONER/RESPONDENT No.1
AND
...RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS-RESPONDENT No.2
Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to vacate the interim order of suspension dt. 22.10.2013 passed in WP.No. 30031 of 2013.
Counsel for the Petitioners : SRI JOSYULA BHASKARA RAO (SC FOR CENTRE GOVT) Counsel for the Respondent No.1 : M/s. SUDHANAGUNTA SWETHA Counsel for the Respondent Nos.2 to 4 : NONE The Court made the following: ORDER
4
[3470]
APHC010294692013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction)
WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY. FOURTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI
AND
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY
WRIT PETITION NO: 30031/2013
Between:
The Postmaster General & Others
...PETITIONERS
AND
D Srinivas, S/o D Suryalingam (Late) & Others
...RESPONDENTS
Counsel for the Petitioners:
1.JOSYULA BHASKARA RAO
(SENIOR PANEL COUNSEL FOR CENTRAL GOVT.)
2.16288/JOSYULA BHASKARA RAO(SC FORCENTRL GOVT)
Counsel for the Respondents:
1.9922/M VENKANNA
2.SUDHANAGUNTA SWETHA
The Court made the following:
%
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI AND
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY
WRIT PETITION N0.30031 of 2013
ORDER: (per Hon’ble Sri Justice Nyapathy Vijay)
- The facts leading to filing of this Writ Petition are as follows:-
The respondent while working as Gramin Dak Sevak Branch Post Master, Jambu Patnam Branch Post Office Attached with Korukonda Sub-Post Office had misappropriated an amount of Rs.700/- made by the public in the recurring deposit accounts standing atthe Branch Post Office. The Charge Memorandum was issued on 13.12.2006 where under two Articles of Charge were framed. A regular departmental enquiry was conducted and a report was submitted that both the charges against the respondent were proved.
2
- The respondent thereupon filed O.A.No.604 of 2011 beforethe Administrative Tribunal. The Tribunal after taking into consideration the nature of the job of the respondent i.e. Gramin DakSevakand the misappropriated amount being just about Rs.700/- during the period of marriage of the respondent set aside the penalty and imposed a punishment of debarring him from appearing for recruitment for the post of Postman for a period of two years during which period, the respondent shall not be considered for appointment of Group-D post. It was also made clear that the respondent could not be entitled for the wages for the period he is out of job till his reinstatement. Hence, the present Writ Petition is filed.
- Heard Sri Joshyula Bhaskar Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner/Department and Ms.Sudhanagunta Swetha, learnedcounselfor Respondent No.1.
- The only issue which falls for consideration is whethertheTribunal is justified in modifying the punishment imposed on the Respondent No.1.
- The Article of Charge-1 pertains to failure to creditan amountof Rs.600/received on 14.03.2006 and Article of Charge-11 pertains to failure to deposit Rs.lOO/- received on 06.12.2005. The Article of Charge mentions that the petitioner had worked as Gramin DakSevak at the Jambu Patnam B.O attached with Korukonda S.O from 22.05.2002 to 27.04.2006. These stray incidents are only two over a period of four years of work by the Respondent No.1. 8. It is not the case of the department that the RespondentNo.1was habituated in evading deposit of amounts into the accounts of the cus-tpmers. A stray incident would require a certainamountofbenefitof doubt^to the Respondent No.1 rather than to castigatethecharacterof delinquent/respondent as a person of dubious nature. The alleged
3
I i
misappropriated amount of Rs.700/is negligible to the salary of the Respondent No.1 and nothing substantial could be madeoutwith the amount of Rs.700/-. 9. Therefore, the penalty imposed on Respondent No.1 wasirrational and perverse. The Tribunal, in the opinion of thisCourtwasentitledto modify the punishment in exercise of the doctrine of proportionality in order to shorten the litigation.
- The Hon’ble Supreme Court in B.C. Chaturvedi vs. UnionofIndia and Ors^ at Paragraph 18 held as under:-
“18 The High Court/Tribunal, while exercising the powerof judicial review, cannot normally substitute its ownconclusionon penalty and impose some other penalty. If the punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority or the appellate authority shocks the conscience of the High Court/Tribunal, it would appropriately mould the relief, either directing the disciplinary/appellate authority to reconsider the penalty imposed, or to shorten litigation, it may itself, in exceptional and rare cases, impose appropriate punishment with cogent reasons in support thereof."
- A similar view was also taken by larger bench of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Union of India Vs Tulsi Ram Patel^ while considering penalty imposed on a government servant under Art.311 of theconsti^■♦'onheld at paragraph 127 as under:;
' (1995) 6 see 749 ' 1985 (3) see 398
4
- Where the court finds that the penalty imposed by the impugned order is arbitrary or grossly excessive or out of all proportion to the offence committed or not warranted by the factsandcircumstancesof the case or the requirements of that particular government service the court will also strike down the impugned order. Thus,in Shankar Dassv. Union of India and another, [1985] 2 S.C.C. 358, this Courtset asidethe impugned order of penalty on the ground that the penaltyofdismissal from service imposed upon the appellant was whimsical and ordered his reinstatement in service with full back wages. It is, however, not necessary that the Court should always order reinstatement. The Court can instead substitute a penalty which in its opinion would be just and proper in the circumstances of the case.
- The Tribunal had given plausible reasons for modifyingtheorderof punishment. Therefore, this Court does not find any error committed by the Tribunal warranting'interference.
- The Writ Petition is devoid of merits and the same is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, pending applications, if any, shall stand closed.
Sd/- K. TATA RAO DEPUTY REGISTRAR
//TRUE COPY//
To
SECTTON OFFICER
Cnr
HIGH COURT
DATED:24/07/2024
ORDER
WP.No.30031 of 2013
DISMISSING THE W.P. WITHOUT COSTS
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the Central Administrative Tribunal was justified in modifying the penalty of removal from service to a lesser punishment of debarment from recruitment.
Whether the penalty imposed by the Tribunal was arbitrary, irrational, or perverse and required modification under the doctrine of proportionality.
Whether the High Court should interfere with the Tribunal's decision to modify the disciplinary penalty.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
B.C. Chaturvedi vs. Union of IndiaExplained¶75
B.C. Chaturvedi vs. Union of India and Ors
Union of India Vs Tulsi Ram PatelExplained¶77
Union of India Vs Tulsi Ram Patel
Shankar Dass v. Union of IndiaExplained¶80
Shankar Dass v. Union of India and another, [1985] 2 S.C.C. 358 · Who else cites this
D Srinivas
The Postmaster General
Ravi Nath Tilhari
Nyapathy Vijay
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
