Allowed

B. Pola Rao, v. Vice-Chairman and Managing Director of A.P. State Agro --

Telangana HC24 Jun 2013WP/19481/2000

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a departmental disciplinary proceeding, the petitioner challenged a penalty of stoppage of one annual increment with cumulative effect imposed for unauthorized absence. The High Court held that since the absence lasted less than ten consecutive days, the provision for major misconduct did not apply and set aside the punishment imposed below.

What did the court decide?

The impugned punishment of stoppage of one annual increment with cumulative effect is set aside.

B. Pola Rao, Vs Vice-Chairman and Managing Director… — Service and Employment | Telangana HC (2013)

¶1

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.CHANDRA KUMAR

¶2

WRIT PETITION No.19481 of 2000

¶3

ORDER :

¶4

This writ petition is filed challenging the orders passed by the second respondent in Pers/EPF/1812/97, dated 19.07.2000 imposing the punishment of stoppage of next one annual grade increment with cumulative effect as illegal, null and void and consequently to drop all proceedings against the petitioner. Initially, the first respondent imposed a punishment of stoppage of next three annual grade increments with cumulative effect, which was modified to that of one increment with cumulative effect by the second respondent.

¶5

The brief facts of the case are as follows:

¶6

The petitioner was appointed in the respondent corporation in 1993 as Bulldozer Operator Grade-III. He was issued a charge memo dated 27.01.1999 levelling four charges. The Enquiry Officer after completing departmental enquiry submitted his report on 30.09.1999 holding that Charge No.IV, is partially proved and other charges are not proved. In Charge No.IV it is alleged that the petitioner abstained from duty from the place of work from 02.11.1998 to 12.11.2008 without prior permission or sanction of leave from the competent authority which act of this amounts to breach of order 19(1)(i) of the standing orders 1977 of the Corporation. The Enquiry Officer held that the petitioner was absent from duty from 04.11.1998 to 09.11.1998 only.

¶7

The respondents’ case is that the petitioner tried to mislead the corporation to cover up his unauthorised absence from duty and also to claim TA and DA besides salary from 04.11.1998 to 09.11.1998. The other three charges framed against the petitioner are as follows:

¶8

1. “Tampering with the hour meter of Ch.Act.157 which act of his misconduct amounts to wilful damage to or causing loss of Corporation’s property within the meaning of Order 39(15) of the Standing Orders 1977 of the Corporation.”

¶9

2. “Causing financial loss to an extent of Rs.2,800/- to the Corporation which Act of his amounts to major misconduct as contemplated under Order 39(15) of the Standing Orders of the Corporation.”

¶10

3. “Wilful insubordination of lawful and reasonable orders of his Controlling Officer in discharge of his duties connected to his employment as contemplated under Order 39(I) of the Standing Orders of the Corporation.”

¶11

It is clear that there is no charge that the petitioner tried to mislead the corporation or tried to claim T.A or D.A besides salary from 04.11.1998 to 09.11.1998.

¶12

Sri K. Manik Prabhu, learned counsel for the petitioner referring to BSO 39(21) submits that if it is proved that the employee is absent without leave for more than 10 consecutive days, the same constitutes major misconduct but when the absence is of less than 10 days, the Standing Order referred to above is not applicable. The relevant standing order is as follows:

¶13

“STANDING ORDER 39 :

¶14

DISCIPLINE AND CONDUCT (ACTS AND OMMISSIONS CONSTITUTING MISCONDUCT) ;

¶15

(21) habitual absence without leave or absence without leave for more than 10 consecutive days or overstaying the sanctioned leave, without sufficient grounds: (22) late attendance on more than four occasions within a month or leaving work before the scheduled time or absence from place of work without proper permission;

¶16

4 0 . ACTS OR OMISSIONS FOR WHICH CENSURE OF FINES MAY BE IMPOSED:

¶17

Any employee may be censured or fined and issued a fine slip for any of the following acts and omissions, subject to and in accordance with the provisions of the payment of wages Act, 1936;

¶18

Provided that, if the offence is habitual, it shall be treated as major misconduct under Standing Order No.47 and dealt with accordingly;

¶19

1) absence without leave and without sufficient cause;

¶20

2) absence without leave and without sufficient cause from the appointed place of work;

¶21

43. DISCIPLINARY ACTION PROCEDURE: No punishment shall be awarded to an employee unless proved guilty of misconduct. The following procedure, as far as practicable, be adopted in an enquiry into the misconduct of an employee:

¶22

44. PENALTIES FOR MISCONDUCT(MAJOR):

¶23

Any employee, found guilty of any misconduct (major) as oer standing order No.39 is liable to any of the following punishments:

¶24

1. Censure,

¶25

2. Fine,

¶26

3. Suspension for a period not exceeding 4 days at a time.

¶27

4. With-holding of annual increments for a specified period not exceeding 3 years,

¶28

5. Demotion,

¶29

6. Removal from service,

¶30

7. Dismissal from service.”

¶31

When the Enquiry Officer categorically hold that the petitioner was absent from duty from 04.11.1998 to 09.11.1998, it is clear that the Standing Order 39(21) referred above is not applicable and consequently the respondents cannot impose any major penalty. It has to be seen that petitioner is absent for less than a week i.e., only six days. Having regard to the fact that the punishment was imposed as early as in the year 2000 and the petitioner has been moving round the Court since about a decade, there is no need to impose any other punishment for the trivial misconduct. In the circumstances, the punishment imposed vide impugned proceedings are set aside.

¶32

Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. No costs.

¶33

Consequently, the Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, shall stand

¶34

closed.

¶35

________________________ B.CHANDRA KUMAR, J

¶36

24^th June, 2013 dv

B. Pola Rao, v. Vice-Chairman and Managing Director of A.P. State Agro --

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

B. Pola Rao, v. Vice-Chairman and Managing Director of A.P. State Agro --

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

P Saroja Devi Vs Acharya N.G. Rangacharya Agriculture University

Mohd. Jahangeer Vs Mohd. Sajid Hussain

Abdulla Bin Abdul Raheem, Vs Sayeed Bin Abdur Raheem

Frederick Benjamin Morris Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh, represented by its

Lakshmi Suri, Vs the Unon of India, rep. by its Secretary

M.Papi Reddy Vs The University of Hyderabad