Dismissed

Shaik Raheem v. The General Manager ( Disciplinary Authority)

Telangana HC10 Sept 2014WP/10622/2004

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenged the confirmation of removal from service. The Single Judge dismissed the petition, holding that there was no violation of natural justice, no lack of evidence-based findings, and no circumstances warranting interference under Article 226.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed; no order as to costs; miscellaneous petitions closed.

Shaik Raheem Vs The General Manager (… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2014)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU AND THE HON’BLE MRS JUSTICE ANIS

¶2

WRIT PETITION No.10622 OF 2004

¶3

ORDER:(per Hon’ble Sri Justice K.C.Bhanu)

¶4

This Writ Petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is filed challenging the Order, dated 05.02.2004 in Original Application No.453 of 2002 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench at Hyderabad (for short, ‘the Tribunal’), whereunder and whereby the Original Application was dismissed confirming the punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority i.e., respondent No.1.

¶5

2. The aforesaid Original Application was filed challenging the Order No.HWPM(R)/D-163/99/87, dated 15.02.2000 passed by the 1^st respondent, removing the petitioner from service, as confirmed by the appellate authority i.e., respondent No.2 vide Order No. No.HWB/IRS/6(18)(73)/511, dated 20.06.2000 and further confirmed by the revisional authority i.e., respondent No.3 vide Order No.7/8(1)/2001-I&M (HWB)/506, dated 15.05.2001.

¶6

3. Heard both sides.

¶7

4. It is not in dispute before this Court that for the unauthorised absence of the petitioner from duty with effect from 12.04.1998, Charge memo was issued on 30.05.1998 and when it was sent to the petitioner, the same was returned with an endorsement addressee absent for more than seven (07) days. Thereafter, the disciplinary authority appointed an Inquiry Officer conduct a regular inquiry. The petitioner also did not turn up before the Inquiry Officer. Basing on the Inquiry Report, disciplinary

¶8

authority issued a show cause notice to the petitioner, for which no reply was submitted within the time prescribed. Therefore, the disciplinary authority passed order against the petitioner imposing punishment of removal from service, and the same was confirmed in the appeal as well as in the revision.

¶9

5. The only ground taken before this Court is that without considering the explanation of the petitioner in a proper perspective, the 1^st respondent imposed the major punishment of removal from service vide Order, dated 15.02.2000, treating his absence period from 12.04.1998 to 30.10.1999 as dies non.

¶10

6. The scope of interference in disciplinary proceedings by the Tribunal or the Court is very much circumscribed. Unless the findings are not based upon any evidence or the inquiry was not conducted in accordance with the Rules or the principles of natural justice are violated or the punishment imposed shocks to the conscience of the Court, the Tribunal or the Court cannot interfere with the punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority.

¶11

7. It is not the case where the principles of natural justice have been violated. No where it is stated that the inquiry was conducted not in accordance with the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965. It is also not a case where the findings are not based upon any evidence on record. In the absence of these aspects, the Tribunal rightly confirmed the punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority and therefore, that order needs no interference by this Court.

¶12

8. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in

¶13

this writ petition shall stand closed.

¶14

_______________________ JUSTICE K.C. BHANU

¶15

___________ JUSTICE ANIS

¶16

Date:10.09.2014 INL

Shaik Raheem v. The General Manager ( Disciplinary Authority)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shaik Raheem v. The General Manager ( Disciplinary Authority)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/s Tadikonda Ramulu Vs Government of India

The Zilla Parishad, Ranga Reddy District, Vs K.Naga Raj

Takkalapally Narayana Rao, Vs Union of India

Union of India, Vs Jaipal Singh

Y.V.S.A.R.H.P. Varma, Vs The Chairman and Managing Director

Govt. of a.P., rep., by Principal Secretary, Vs Y.Venkata Subbaiah