Partly allowed

P.Govindiah, v. Government of Andhra Pradesh

Telangana HC14 Dec 2012WP/8047/2002

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners challenging departmental punishment for card playing sought quashing after being acquitted criminally. Court held acquittal does not bar departmental action but modified harsh cumulative punishment to stoppage without cumulative effect.

What did the court decide?

Punishment modified from stoppage of two increments with cumulative effect to stoppage of two increments without cumulative effect.

P.Govindiah, Vs Government of Andhra Pradesh — Service and Employment | Telangana HC (2012)

¶1

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N. RAVI SHANKAR WRIT PETITION No.8047 OF 2002

¶2

ORDER:

¶3

Heard Sri G.Vidyasagar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Sri A.K.Jayaprakash, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents 2 and 3.

¶4

2. In this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners are challenging the order dated 27-02-1997 of the 3^rd respondent i.e. the Joint Executive Officer of Tirumala Tirupathi Devasthanams, imposing a punishment of stoppage of their annual increments for a period two years with cumulative effect i.e. the annual increments to be given after the order dated 27-02-1997.

¶5

3. The relevant facts, which lead to filing of this writ petition, can be stated thus:

¶6

The petitioners, who are five in number, were at the relevant time working as Forest Mazdoors under the control of the respondents 2 and 3. A disciplinary enquiry was commenced against them on a charge that on 3^rd April 1996 at about 2.00 p.m., all the petitioners were found playing a card game known as ‘Mangathayee’, which is punishable under the A.P. Gaming Act. It must be mentioned here that the concerned police, who apprehended the petitioners playing the above card game, charge sheeted all the petitioners in a petty case in S.T.C. No.1473 of 1996 on the file of II Additional Munsiff Magistrate, Tirupathi, for the aforesaid offence. It will also be found from the record that all the petitioners admitted the said offence before the learned Magistrate and accordingly on their admission, they were convicted on 04-07-1996 and were each sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.220/-. Subsequently the petitioners filed a criminal appeal i.e. Crl.A. No.159 of 1997 questioning the above convictions and sentences and that

¶7

appeal was allowed by the appellate Court and the matter was remanded. Subsequently, after the matter was remanded, trial was held in the aforesaid criminal case and that ended in acquittal on 1807-1998.

¶8

4. However, in the meanwhile, the disciplinary authority i.e. 3^rd respondent also ordered an enquiry on the departmental side on the aforesaid charge against petitioners and the concerned Sub-Inspector who booked the case against the petitioners was examined as a witness in it.

¶9

5. The order dated 27-02-1997 of the 3^rd respondent by which the punishments of stoppage of two increments with cumulative effect was imposed would read that in the enquiry, the petitioners did not cross-examine the Sub-Inspector and gave some evasive replies in their statements. Accepting the version of the Sub-Inspector, on the very same charge, which was framed in the departmental proceedings also, the 3^rd respondent by the above order dated 27-02-1997, awarded the aforesaid punishment.

¶10

6. Sri Vidyasagar invited my attention to the merits in the case and pointed out that before examination of the Sub-Inspector in the enquiry, the petitioners were called upon to give their statements and this is an irregular procedure. He also pointed out that once the criminal case ended in acquittal on 18-07-1998, the very basis for the charge stood erased and consequently, the punishment order should be set aside. There is no force in this contention.

¶11

7. It may be noted that when an employee is found to have committed any misconduct or indulged in any activity which is unbecoming of his duties as a public servant, disciplinary proceedings on the departmental side can be initiated and correspondingly criminal proceedings can also be launched, if the misconduct amounts to an

¶12

offence. In the present case, the departmental enquiry was also held and the very same Sub-Inspector was examined in it. What should be noted is that the Sub-Inspector was not cross-examined by the petitioners in the departmental enquiry, thus leaving his evidence in the said enquiry unchallenged. In view of this, it can be said that the opinion of the 3^rd respondent that the petitioners are guilty of the charge can be upheld. The mere fact that petitioners’ statements were first recorded cannot make any difference as they taken to cross-examine the Sub-Inspector. Nothing is brought to my notice to conclude that mere acquittal in the criminal case must result in quashing of the charges on the departmental side.

¶13

8. Accordingly, I find that the impugned order dated 27-02-1997 cannot in principle be disturbed so far it relates to conclusion of 3^rd respondent that petitioners are guilty of the charge. That takes me to the question of punishment. So far as punishment is concerned, the petitioners were awarded with stoppage of two increments with cumulative effect and this will admittedly have adverse effect on their pension and pensionary benefits. It is true that the petitioners, being public servants, were found guilty of indulging in a card game at a holy place. Equally, it can be said that it was a game among themselves, which they were playing, and it appears that they resorted it to as a time-pass as pointed out by Sri Vidyasagar. In these circumstances, I am of the opinion that punishment of stoppage of two increments with cumulative effect can be said to be a harsh one. Accordingly, the punishment is modified to the effect that the petitioners will suffer stoppage of two increments without cumulative effect.

¶14

9. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is partly allowed in the above terms. There shall be no order as to costs. The miscellaneous petitions in this writ petition shall stand disposed of abiding to result of the writ petition.

¶15

_________________ N. RAVI SHANKAR, J

¶16

December 14, 2012. KTL

P.Govindiah, v. Government of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P.Govindiah, v. Government of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M.A.P. Rao Vs The Regional Manager, Apsrtc

P. Seetharamulu, Vs The Singareni Collieries Co. Ltd.

Nirmala Babu Vs the Mang.Dir.a.P.S.S.C.Corp.Ltd.Hyd.

Mohd.Jaffar Vs The Govt of Ap., rep.by its Principal Secretary

Jacob Mudi Vs The Deputy Inspector General / Nz

Lanka Sankara Rao Vs Godavari Grameena Bank