Dismissed

T. Srihari Rao,S/o.Sri T.Lakshminarayana v. The Senior Divisional Operating Manger

Telangana HC10 Oct 2014WP/17267/2003

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging the dismissal of an original application by the Central Administrative Tribunal. The petitioner was a railway employee reduced in grade for drinking alcohol during duty. The Court held there was sufficient evidence of misconduct and the final punishment was not disproportionate.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.

T. Srihari Rao,S/o.Sri T.Lakshminarayana Vs… — Labour and Industrial Disputes | Telangana HC (2014)

¶1

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU AND

¶2

THE HON’BLE MRS JUSTICE ANIS

¶3

WRIT PETITION No.17267 OF 2003

¶4

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

¶5

This writ petition is filed challenging the order, dated 29.10.2002 in R.A.No.47 of 2002 in O.A.No.1517 of 2000 and order, dated 30.8.2002, in O.A.No.1517 of 2000 on the file of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench, Hyderabad (for short, “the Tribunal”).

¶6

2. Petitioner herein/applicant filed the aforementioned Original Application before the Tribunal to call for the records pertaining to orders (1) penalty advice of the Senior Divisional Operating Manager, South Central Railway, Vijayawada, dated 4.2.1999, (2) Memorandum, dated 23.12.1999, of the Additional Divisional Railway Manager, South Central Railway, Vijayawada and (3) Order, dated 3.8.2000, of the Chief Operating Manager, and to set aside the same by declaring them as illegal and arbitrary, and consequently, to direct the respondents to restore him to his former grade with all consequential benefits such as arrears of salary, increments, promotion and other attendant benefits for which he is entitled to from time to time and also award exemplary costs and also to treat the period of suspension as on duty for all purposes.

¶7

3. The Tribunal, upon considering the material on record, dismissed the aforementioned Original Application. Aggrieved thereby, applicant filed the aforementioned Review Application and the same was rejected. Challenging these orders, applicant filed the present writ petition.

¶8

4. A regular departmental enquiry was initiated against the petitioner for violation of the provision under Rule 22 & 3(1)(ii)(iii) of Railway Services (Conduct) Rules, 1966. While he was working as Assistant Station Master on 6.11.1988, from 13.30 hours to 21.30 hours, he was found under the influence of liquor and refused to give the samples of blood and urine when Divisional Medical Officer demanded him to give those samples for sending them to Forensic Laboratory for examination to ascertain the content of alcoholisam and thus, disregarded the orders of the superiors and thus, he failed to maintain absolute devotion to duty and acted in a manner unbecoming of Railway Servant and thus, it came to light that he was under the influence of alcohol and thereby, he committed misconduct. The disciplinary authority, by order, dated 4.2.1999, imposed the penalty of reduction to lower grade as Assistant Station Master in the scale of Rs.4500-7000/- for a period of 40 months with effect from 11.2.1999. The appellate authority, by an order, dated 23.12.1999, modified the penalty to that of reduction to lower grade as Assistant Station Master for a period of 24 months (non-recurring). The applicant thereafter preferred a Mercy appeal on 6.7.2000 to modify the penalty for 24 months with effect from 24.12.1999. The revisional authority took a lenient view and issued an order, dated 3.8.2000, modifying the above penalty and further reduced it to one year (12 months) without cumulative effect.

¶9

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner/applicant contended that as the petitioner was not doing well, he consumed a medicine, which had the symptoms of combination of alcoholic contents, and hence, she prays to set aside the impugned orders.

¶10

6. On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents contended that it is not a case of no evidence; that when the petitioner was subjected to breath analyzer test, it gave a positive result thereby, it was established in the enquiry that he was under the

¶11

influence of alcohol; that it is not for this Court to substitute his punishment when there is some evidence and hence, he prays to dismiss the writ petition.

¶12

7. Ordinarily, this Court would not interfere with the disciplinary matters unless it is shown that the charges levelled against the delinquent officer are based upon no evidence. Adequacy or sufficiency of the evidence cannot be a ground to interfere with the disciplinary proceedings. As there is evidence to show that the petitioner was under the influence of alcohol while discharging his official duties, which is in a manner unbecoming of Railway Servant, charges were framed and the evidence let in by the department would clearly go to show that the charge levelled against the petitioner has been proved.

¶13

8. Coming to the point of punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority, there cannot be any dispute that the disciplinary authority or in the case of appeal, the appellate authority has got a power to impose proper punishment, but that punishment should be proportionate to the proved misconduct. Unless the punishment imposed shocks the conscience of the Court, normally, this Court would not interfere with the punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority and confirmed by the appellate authority. On 4.2.1999, the petitioner was imposed the punishment of penalty of reduction to lower grade as Assistant Station Master in the scale of Rs.4500-7000/- for a period of 40 months with effect from 11.2.1999 by the disciplinary authority. On appeal, the appellate authority, by an order, dated 23.12.1999, modified the penalty to that of reduction to lower grade as Assistant Station Master for a period of 24 months (nonrecurring). Later, the revisional authority took a lenient view and issued an order, dated 3.8.2000, modifying the above penalty and further reduced it to one year (12 months) without cumulative effect. So, that order of punishment cannot be said to be disproportionate to

¶14

the proved misconduct. The Tribunal rightly passed the impugned order and that order needs no interference of this Court. The writ petition is devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed.

¶15

9. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this Writ Petition shall stand closed.

¶16

______________________ JUSTICE K.C.BHANU

¶17

JUSTICE ANIS Date: 10.10.2014 AMD

¶18

51 THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU AND

¶19

THE HON’BLE MRS JUSTICE ANIS

¶20

WRIT PETITION No.17267 OF 2003

¶21

DATE: 10.10.2014

¶22

AMD

T. Srihari Rao,S/o.Sri T.Lakshminarayana v. The Senior Divisional Operating Manger

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

T. Srihari Rao,S/o.Sri T.Lakshminarayana v. The Senior Divisional Operating Manger

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

Md.Azmatullah Khan Vs Secty Tr and R and B Dept Hyd and Another

Smt.Penumatsa Appala Narasamma Vs Managing Director

Reliance General Insurance Company Limited Vs Smt. K. Surya Kalavathi

M/s. Komala Theatre Vs Appellate Deputy Commissioner (C.T)

K. Ramachander Vs The State of Ap

K.Muttaiah S/o Late (Sri) Pochaiah Vs The Hyderabad Metropolitan Water Supply And Sewerage Board