Dismissed

G.Pentaiah, S/o.Atchaiah, R/o.Ex.Khallasi(shore) v. The Visakhapatnam Port Trust, rep.by its Chief Mechanical

Telangana HC23 Sept 2010WP/573/2004

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner, a Khalasi in Visakhapatnam Port Trust, challenged compulsory retirement alleging violation of natural justice. The court held the petitioner was served charges and the enquiry report, finding no violation. The petition was dismissed noting the petitioner's prolonged absences justified the punishment.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed; no order as to costs.

G.Pentaiah, S/o.Atchaiah, R/o.Ex.Khallasi(s… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2010)

¶1

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.573 of 2004

¶2

ORDER:

¶3

The petitioner was employed as Khalasi in the Visakhapatnam Port Trust. The punishment of compulsory retirement was imposed upon him by the Chief Mechanical Engineer through order, dated 1704-2003. An appeal preferred by the petitioner before the 2^nd respondent was rejected on 18-06-2003. Hence, this writ petition.

¶4

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the impugned order is violative of the principles of natural justice and the petitioner was not given an opportunity to defend himself in the disciplinary proceedings. It is said that he remained absent for some period on account of severe disease and the same was not taken into account by the respondents. Learned counsel further submits that the appellate authority did not pass any reasoned order.

¶5

On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents submits that a detailed enquiry was conducted, after serving chargesheet upon the petitioner and there is no infraction of the principles of natural justice. He further submits that the petitioner is a habitual absentee and vexed with his attitude, the 1^st respondent passed the impugned order.

¶6

The first contention urged on behalf of the petitioner is that the impugned order is violative of the principles of natural justice.

¶7

The initial paragraph of the impugned order, dated 17-04-2003, would certainly give an impression that straight away an enquiry officer was appointed and the report was taken into account. However, if any one looks into the contents of the order in detail, it becomes evident that the petitioner was served with a charge-sheet, dated 03-01-2003 on 08-01-2003 and that he has not chosen to submit any explanation for it. An enquiry officer was appointed vide order, dated 27-01-2003 and he submitted a report on 04-03-2003. After

¶8

receipt of the report, the 1^st respondent served a copy of the same upon the petitioner through covering letter, dated 07-03-2003. The petitioner, having received the same, did not choose to reply. Under those circumstances, it cannot be said that there was violation of the principles of natural justice.

¶9

Coming to the merits of the matter, this court cannot enter that arena at all. Be that as it may, the record discloses that the petitioner has absented on several occasions and imposition of punishment, such as withholding of increment, reduction of pay scale and other similar punishments did not have any effect upon. The spell of absence that led to the impugned order was 146 days. By any standard, the organisation cannot function in the absence of an employee for such a long period.

¶10

It is no doubt true that the order passed by the appellate authority is not elaborate. At the same time, it cannot be expected to pass detailed orders. Much would depend upon the facts of the case and when the 2^nd respondent has not chosen to interfere with the order under appeal challenged before him, it cannot be said that any serious legal infirmity has taken place on the sole ground that he did not furnish reasons. The requirement as to furnishing of reasons would vary in an exercise to be undertaken by the primary authority on the one hand and the appellate authority on the other. The former is under obligation to supplement reasons in support of his conclusions.

¶11

Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶12

___________ 23-09-2010

¶13

Prv

G.Pentaiah, S/o.Atchaiah, R/o.Ex.Khallasi(shore) v. The Visakhapatnam Port Trust, rep.by its Chief Mechanical

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

G.Pentaiah, S/o.Atchaiah, R/o.Ex.Khallasi(shore) v. The Visakhapatnam Port Trust, rep.by its Chief Mechanical

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

A.V.V.S.N. Murthy Vs The Government of Andhra PRadesh

P. Anthony Das Vs State Bank of Hyderabad

N. Lakshmi Kumari W/o Anjaneyulu Vs Government of Andhra Pradesh repby its Principal Secrtary

Gorle Joginaidu, S/o. Simhachalam, Hindu, Vs The Depot Manager, Apsrtc

Sri S.S. Reddy Vs The Labour Court-Iii

Smt. Kaka Ademma, W/o. Pothuraju, Vs The District Collector, Khammam.