The High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging an Administrative Tribunal order that modified a respondent's removal from service due to unauthorized absence, upholding the stoppage of grade increments as appropriate.
The Writ Petition was dismissed. No order as to costs.
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.36820 OF 2012
ORDER: (per Hon’ble Sri Justice K.C.Bhanu)
This Writ Petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is filed to call for the records relating to the order, dated 11.10.2012 in Original Application No.682 of 2012 with V.M.A No.320 of 2012 passed by the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad (for short, ‘the Tribunal’) and quash the same.
2. Respondent herein filed the aforementioned Original Application assailing the removal order passed by petitioner No.2 herein through the impugned proceedings Roc.No.5532/2009/M3 (s), dated 16.01.2012, on the ground of misconduct and unauthorized absence and requested to set aside the same by holding that it is illegal and arbitrary and consequently direct the respondents to reinstate him into service as Town Planning and Building Overseer.
3. The Tribunal, upon considering the material on record, allowed the Original Application in part setting aside the removal order passed by petitioner No.2. However, respondent was imposed with a punishment of stoppage of five annual grade increments with cumulative effect and the period from the date of unauthorized absence till the date of removal from service shall be treated as whatever leave that is available to his credit without pay. It was also held that from the date of removal till the date of reinstatement, the period shall be treated as on duty without pay and allowances.
4. Facts are not in dispute. As per Rule 20 of the Andhra Pradesh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1991 (for short, ‘the Rules’) Departmental proceedings were initiated against respondent for his misconduct i.e., unauthorized absence from official duties with
effect from 18.09.2009 without proper leave or permission from the competent authority. Articles of charges have been issued vide Charge Memo No.5532/2009/M3 (s), dated 31.05.2010 by petitioner No.2 herein, who is the disciplinary authority. A regular departmental enquiry has been conducted by following the procedure contemplated under the Rules. The enquiry officer submitted a report vide Lr.Roc.No.1094/2009/S, dated 06.05.2011, wherein she stated that the charges framed against the respondent have been proved. The disciplinary authority having accepted the findings of the enquiry officer, imposed penalty of removal from service vide proceedings No.5532/2009/M3(s), dated 16.01.2012, with immediate effect, which was impugned in the Original Application.
5. Heard the learned Government Pleader for Services-I and the learned counsel for the respondent.
6. The findings of the Enquiry Officer cannot be said to be perverse. The findings are based upon proper appreciation of material on record. Unauthorized absence with effect from 18.09.2009 without prior sanction of leave is established. The enquiry officer found that respondent has applied leave from 05.08.2009 to 30.09.2009 on medical grounds and thereafter, he sent a telegram on 01.10.2009 requesting to extend the leave from 01.10.2009 to 31.10.2009. Neither the respondent has applied any leave in the appropriate form nor he joined the duty. As per G.O.Ms.No.260, dated 04.09.2003, General Administration (Service-C) Department, dated 04.09.2003, where there is unauthorized absence for a continuous period extending ‘one year’, removal from service shall be imposed. The Tribunal, in the impugned order observed that if the period of absence covered by casual leave and telegrams, and if the period of absence is less than one year, the aforementioned G.O.Ms.No.260, dated 04.09.2003, is not applicable to the case of the respondent. That finding is not shown to be illegal or perverse. Imposition of punishment is within the power and discretion of the disciplinary authority and Tribunal or
Court has no jurisdiction to substitute the punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority unless it is shown that the punishment is totally disproportionate to the proved misconduct of employee. But, to shorten litigation, impose appropriate punishment with cogent reasons in support thereof. We find such reasons in the order of Tribunal. Therefore, considering these aspects, the Tribunal rightly modified the sentence, as the proved misconduct is disproportionate to the punishment imposed and that order needs no interference by this Court.
7. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.
______________________ JUSTICE K.C.BHANU
__________ JUSTICE ANIS
JULY 02, 2014 YVL
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU AND
THE HON’BLE MRS JUSTICE ANIS
WRIT PETITION No.36820 OF 2012
02.07.2014
YVL
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the Tribunal was justified in modifying the removal punishment to stoppage of five annual grade increments instead of removal.
Whether the finding of unauthorized absence was perverse or based on proper appreciation of material on record.
Whether this Court has jurisdiction to substitute the punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Not citedReferred
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Petitioner
Respondent
K.C.Bhanu
Anis
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
