A writ petition filed by the legal representative of a deceased employee challenging his dismissal. The court modified the punishment of dismissal to compulsory retirement.
Modification of discharge order to compulsory retirement.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU AND
THE HON’BLE MRS JUSTICE ANIS
WRIT PETITION No.23837 OF 2002
ORDER: (per Hon’ble Sri Justice K.C.Bhabu)
This Writ Petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is filed to declare the order, dated 07.08.2002, in Original Application No.2036 of 2000 passed by the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad (for short, ‘the Tribunal’) confirming the order passed by the first respondent in G.O.Ms.No.44 I&CAD (CAD Ser.II.2) Department, dated 03.04.2000, to remove petitioner No.1 from the service, as unjust, illegal and arbitrary and in violation of principles of natural justice; and further to direct the respondents 1 and 2 to reinstate petitioner No.1 into service with all the attendant benefits after calling for the records.
2. Petitioner No.1 /applicant herein filed aforementioned Original Application to declare G.O.Ms.No.44 I & CAD (CAD Ser.II.2) Department, dated 03.04.2000, purporting to remove him from service, as illegal and arbitrary and consequently, to declare that the action of the Government in depriving his right of appeal, as illegal and arbitrary. The Tribunal, after considering the material on record, dismissed the aforementioned Original Application vide impugned order, dated 07.08.2002.
3. During pendency of the Writ Petition, as petitioner No.1 died, his wife was brought on record as his legal representative. Petitioner No.1 along with two other Officers alleged to have committed a grave misconduct with regard to not properly discharging their legitimate duties in Water Regulation and Maintenance of Gates. Due to which, damage occurred to the Reservoir bund of Rallapadu on 01.11.1994. After issuing charge memo, not satisfied with the explanation, a regular Departmental Enquiry was conducted. The Enquiry Officer, after conducting enquiry, found that charges levelled against the delinquent
officers were proved including petitioner No.1. Insofar as petitioner No.1 is concerned, order of dismissal was ordered. In respect of another officer, as he retired from service, 3% pension to be cut in his pension and in respect of another person, punishment was imposed with stoppage of three increments with cumulative effect for a period of three years. On the ground that petitioner No.1 is required to be present at Rallapadu Project and as he was not present, damage was caused to reservoir bund, a major punishment was imposed against him. It is not a case where the department has not conducted the enquiry in accordance with the Rules. Similarly, it is not the case of petitioner No.1 that principles of natural justice have been violated. There is some material on record, which would prove the charges levelled against petitioner No.1 and two delinquent officers. Even the counsel for petitioner No.1 did not challenge the Enquiry Proceedings.
4. The contention of the learned counsel for petitioners is that when the opinion was sought for from A.P.P.S.C, they recommended for compulsory retirement of petitioner No.1 and therefore, in the fitness of things that punishment would meet the ends of justice.
5. On the other hand, learned Government Pleader for Service-II, appearing for respondent Nos.1 and 2 contended that because of dereliction of duty, extent of damage caused to the Government and also loss of human life, cattle and standing crop, the punishment is proportionate to the proved misconduct and hence, he prays to dismiss the Writ Petition.
6. When the charges levelled against petitioner No.1 and two other delinquent officers are almost same for the alleged misconduct, there should not be any discrimination with regard to the punishment. In view of the fact that petitioner No.1 is the person, who suppose to stay at Rallapadu Reservoir and monitor the situation of operating the generator, so that the floodwater would not be averted in causing damage to the
project. Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the case, though it is not for this Court to impose punishment and it is the duty of Disciplinary Authority, due to long lapse of time, it is not desirable to remand the matter to the Disciplinary Authority for imposing punishment other than dismissal from service. Considering the fact that petitioner No.1 died, we modify the punishment of dismissal to that of compulsory retirement duly taking note of the facts and circumstances of the case.
7. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed to the extent indicated above. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this Writ Petition shall stand closed.
_______________ (K.C.BHANU,J) _____ (ANIS,J)
MARCH 06, 2014 YVL
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU AND
THE HON’BLE MRS JUSTICE ANIS
WRIT PETITION No.23837 OF 2002
06.03.2014
YVL
2 issues framed by the court
Whether dismissal of a deceased government employee from service should be modified.
Whether the departmental proceedings violated principles of natural justice.
Petitioner No.1's wife
Respondent Nos.1 and 2
K.C.Bhanu
Anis
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
