Allowed

K.Pratap Reddy v. The Superindent Engineer

Telangana HC27 Jan 2014WP/23023/2002

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition, the High Court of Andhra Pradesh examined a dismissal order against a Revenue Cashier found guilty of delayed remittance of collected amounts. The court found no misappropriation, only technical negligence, and deemed dismissal disproportionate. Consequently, it ordered reinstatement with continuity of service but without back wages.

What did the court decide?

Reinstatement of the petitioner into service with continuity of service and attendant benefits but without back wages, along with a penalty of withholding one annual increment without cumulative effec

K.Pratap Reddy Vs The Superindent Engineer — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2014)

¶1

HON’BLE Dr. JUSTICE K.G.SHANKAR

¶2

Writ Petition No.23023 of 2002

Date: 27-01-2014

Between

K.Pratap Reddy

… Petitioner

and

The Superintendent Engineer, A.P. Transco, Operation Circle, Medak; and another

¶9

… Respondents

¶10

HON’BLE Dr. JUSTICE K.G.SHANKAR

¶11

Writ Petition No.23023 of 2002

¶12

Order:

¶13

The petitioner seeks for a Writ of certiorari to set aside the award dated 27-6-2002 in I.D.No.52 of 1999 on the file of Labour Court-II, Hyderabad (the 2^nd respondent herein) confirming the order of dismissal passed by the 1^st respondent on 05-02-1994.

¶14

2. The petitioner was working as a Revenue Cashier in the capacity of an LDC in the erstwhile Andhra Pradesh

¶15

State Electricity Board. He was placed under suspension on the ground that he was indulging in delayed remittances of the amounts collected by him. A domestic enquiry was subsequently held wherein the petitioner was found guilty. A Show Cause Notice was issued to the petitioner calling for his explanation. Not satisfied with the explanation of the petitioner, the Disciplinary Authority ordered the dismissal of the petitioner from service through proceedings dated 05-02-1994. Questioning the same, the petitioner raised I.D.No.52 of 1999 before the 2^nd respondent-Labour Court. Through its award dated 27-6-2002, the 2^nd respondent-Labour Court confirmed the order of dismissal. The same is now questioned in this writ petition.

¶16

3. It is the case of the 1^st respondent that the petitioner collected Rs.3,339/on 08-9-1992 and deposited the same in September and October, 1992. It is also his case that the petitioner collected a total of Rs.1,388/- in June, July and September, 1992 and deposited the same with a delay of about 2 to 4 months. These facts were admitted by the petitioner.

¶17

4. The petitioner offered his explanation contending that he was new to dealing with collection of cash from the Electricity Consumers and was suffering from confusion.

¶18

He also submitted that he had his own share of domestic problems which restrained him from prompt remittance of the amounts collected by him. Curiously, the Enquiry Officer himself noticed that the delayed remittances were on account of domestic pressure coupled with negligence of duties.

¶19

5. Be it noted that there was no allegation of misappropriation in the sense the amounts were ultimately remitted to the concerned authority. Where the petitioner contended that he could not deposit the amounts received by him within time owing to inexperience and where the same more or less has been accepted in the domestic enquiry, I consider that the punishment of dismissal from service is shockingly disproportionate. It would be a proper case for ordering reinstatement of the petitioner into service with appropriate reliefs.

¶20

6. Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed in part. It is established that the petitioner was guilty of the charges levelled against him. However, where there was no factual misappropriation albeit there was technical misappropriation and where the petitioner claimed that the incidents occurred on account of his inexperience, reinstatement of the petitioner into service with continuity of service and attendant benefits but without back wages for the period he was out of employment is ordered together with a penalty of withholding of

¶21

one annual increment without cumulative effect. The miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. No costs.

¶22

_____________________ Dr. K.G.SHANKAR, J. 27^th January, 2014. Ak

¶23

HON’BLE Dr. JUSTICE K.G.SHANKAR

¶24

121

¶25

Writ Petition No.23023 of 2002

¶26

27^th January, 2014. (Ak)

K.Pratap Reddy v. The Superindent Engineer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.Pratap Reddy v. The Superindent Engineer

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

Abdul Samad, Vs Ediga Jayamma

K. China Satyanarayana Vs Southern Pesticides Corporation Ltd., Govt. of India

Kongali Mopataiah Vs The State of A.P.

N.Narsimloo, Vs Bank of Baroda, (a Government of India Undertaking)

A.J.Nagaraja, Vs Depot Manager

The Depot Manager, Apstrc, Vs G. Padma Rao, E.334044