Dismissed

M.a.Haleem v. The State of Ap.

Telangana HC16 Oct 2014WP/5510/2003

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This is a writ petition challenging the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal's dismissal of an original application filed against a Government order dismissing the petitioner from service. The High Court held that finding of the quasi-judicial body was not based on no evidence and the punishment was not disproportionate to the misconduct.

What did the court decide?

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

M.a.Haleem Vs The State of Ap. — Service and Employment | Telangana HC (2014)

¶1

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

¶2

THE HON’BLE MRS JUSTICE ANIS

¶3

WRIT PETITION No.5510 OF 2003

¶4

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

¶5

This writ petition is filed challenging the order, dated 10.1.2002, in O.A.No.5414 of 2001 (common order along with O.A.No.5415 of 2001) on the file of the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad (for short, “the Tribunal”).

¶6

2. Petitioner herein/applicant filed the aforementioned Original Application before the Tribunal to declare G.O.Ms.No.41, Labour, Employment Training and Factories (Emp) Department, dated 26.5.2001, as illegal and void and consequently, to declare that he is deemed to be in service with all consequential benefits of service with effect from the date of his dismissal from service.

¶7

3. While the petitioner was working as Junior Employment Officer, Sub-Employment Exchange, Bellampally, Adilabad District, he was placed under suspension by respondent No.2 on 12.10.1987 on the allegation of committing certain irregularities while sponsoring names of candidates to Singareni Collieries for appointment to the posts of Floating Badli Fillers. The enquiry officer issued a charge memo to the petitioner on 29.1.1988. Thereafter, the enquiry was conducted and a report was submitted to the Government. The Government thereupon did not pass any order, but referred the case of the petitioner to the Tribunal for Disciplinary Proceedings (for short, “T.D.P.”) vide memo, dated 9.6.1989. At that point of time, the T.D.P. had power to conduct enquiry with regard to the Gazetted Officers. After conducting the enquiry, the T.D.P. recommended the Government for dismissal of the petitioner from service. The Government passed the dismissal order

¶8

vide G.O.Ms.No.3, dated 25.1.2001. Challenging the same, petitioner filed O.A.No.644 of 2001 before the Tribunal. The Tribunal, by its order, dated 9.2.2001, allowed the said Original Application by setting aside G.O.Ms.No.3, dated 25.1.2001, and the returned the case back to the Government for imposition of a proper punishment and to pass appropriate orders by taking into consideration the objections raised by the applicant and without being influenced by the recommendations of the T.D.P. Again, the Government issued G.O.Ms.No.41, dated 26.5.2001, dismissing the petitioner from service. Hence, he filed O.A.No.5414 of 2001 before the Tribunal.

¶9

4. The Tribunal, upon considering the material on record, dismissed the aforementioned Original Application. Challenging the same, applicant filed the present writ petition.

¶10

5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/applicant contended that the case of the petitioner ought not to have been referred to the T.D.P.; that in pursuance of the rules prevailing at that point of time, the T.D.P. had no power to recommend the case of the petitioner to the Government for imposing appropriate punishment; that there was a delay of seven years in passing appropriate orders by the Government; that the punishment is disproportionate to the proved misconduct and therefore, he prays to set aside the impugned order.

¶11

6. On the other hand, learned Government Pleader for Employment & Training (Telangana) appearing for the respondents contended that in the enquiry, three charges levelled against the petitioner have been established beyond preponderance of probability and it is not a case of no evidence; that in the first round of litigation, the T.D.P. directed the Government to issue appropriate punishment and that order has become final and now, learned counsel for the petitioner cannot reagitate the same contention; that the punishment imposed is in consonance with the proved misconduct and there are no grounds to

¶12

interfere with the impugned order and hence, he prays to dismiss the writ petition.

¶13

7. There cannot be any dispute that in case of disciplinary proceedings, it is the disciplinary authority and in case of appeal, the appellate authority, that has got a power to impose the appropriate punishment. Ordinarily, this Court or the Tribunal would not interfere with the disciplinary proceedings unless it is shown that the findings are based upon no evidence. It is not a case where the findings are based upon no evidence. The T.D.P., after conducting due enquiry and basing on the evidence available on record, gave a categorical finding that charges 1 to 3 were proved against the petitioner. None of the findings is shown to be perverse or contrary to the evidence on record. Therefore, there are absolutely no grounds to interfere with the findings recorded by the T.D.P.

¶14

8. The other contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner cannot be re-agitated in view of the directions given by the Tribunal in the order, dated 9.2.2001, in O.A.No.644 of 2001 whereby the case of the petitioner was referred to the Government for imposition of appropriate punishment and to pass appropriate orders by taking into consideration his objections and without being uninfluenced by the recommendations of the T.D.P. for dismissal.

¶15

9. There cannot be any dispute that the punishment imposed should be proportionate with the proved misconduct. This is the doctrine of proportionality. Unless the punishment imposed shocks the conscience of the Court, ordinarily, this Court would not substitute its own findings with regard to altering the punishment. The first charge levelled against the petitioner is that in connivance with his subordinate staff, he sponsored 145 male candidates with false registrations pertaining to others, which were either shown as placed, lapsed and with numbers allotted to women applicants. The second

¶16

charge is that he conspired with a candidate and sponsored his name as a freedom fighter under the priority category though he was not a freedom fighter. The third charge is that he unauthorisedly allowed a private person to attend the registration work and he was also found collecting certain illegal amounts from the candidates, who approached him for registration. These charges have been held proved by the Tribunal. Therefore, from the first charge of sponsoring 145 candidates with false registrations, a reasonable inference can be drawn as to for what purpose, he recommended those candidates for giving appointments to them in the Singareni Collieries. The Singareni Collieries officials have not given such appointments for the reason that they got a doubt with regard to that aspect and when a surprise check was made by the officials of the Employment Exchange, these irregularities were found. Had it remained unchecked, 145 male candidates, who attended with false registrations, would have been given appointments. Therefore, the punishment of dismissal of the petitioner from service is proportionate with the proved misconduct. Hence, the Tribunal rightly passed the impugned order and that order needs no interference by this Court. The Writ Petition is devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed.

¶17

10. 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.

¶18

______________________ JUSTICE K.C.BHANU

¶19

_______________ JUSTICE ANIS Date: 16.10.2014 AMD

¶20

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

¶21

THE HON’BLE MRS JUSTICE ANIS

¶22

WRIT PETITION No.5510 OF 2003

¶23

DATE: 16.10.2014

¶24

AMD

M.a.Haleem v. The State of Ap.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M.a.Haleem v. The State of Ap.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sayam Srinivas Vs Sayam Manjula

Sayam Krishna Vs Sayam. Manjula

Union of India, Vs Sk. Abdul Salam

V.Prabhakar Vs Sec.Transport Roads and Buildingsandanoth

K. Yadagiri Vs The Government of India

Smt. Dr. C.v.Vijayalakshmi, Vs The Government of Telangana, rep.by its Principal