Disposed

B.Ramdas v. the Depot Manager and Another

Telangana HC3 Jan 2020WP/24131/2005

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A writ petition challenging the confirmation of a removal order was disposed of. The Court held that since the 2nd Respondent found only an intention to misappropriate rather than guilt, it failed to apply the proportionality theory. The petitioner was directed to be appointed afresh as a Conductor.

What did the court decide?

Respondents directed to consider the petitioner for appointment afresh as a Conductor without past service benefits, subject to medical fitness.

B.Ramdas Vs the Depot Manager and Another — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2020)

¶1

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI

¶2

WRIT PETITION No.24131 of 2005

¶3

ORDER:

¶4

When the matter is taken up for hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the 2^nd respondent had dismissed I.D.No.52 of 2001 preferred by the petitioner without granting any relief.

¶5

Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the 2^nd respondent ought to have interfered with the order of removal passed by the 1^st respondent, as the same is shockingly disproportionate to the alleged misconduct.

¶6

He further submits that the 2^nd respondent dismissed I.D.No.52 of 2001 on 03.03.2003 observing as follows :-

¶7

“ By making corrections in the SRs., it gave raise to issue of used tickets with an intention to misappropriate the amount only. No other reason can be believed by making corrections in S.Rs. As clear act of misappropriation is proved against the petitioner, lenient view shall not be taken in awarding the punishment for proved misconduct. If any lesser punishment than removal from service is imposed by exercising powers under Section 11-A of I.D.Act, it would be nothing but improper exercise of powers conferred on this Tribunal under Section 11-A of I.D.Act. It would be nothing, but uncalled for and unwarranted sympathy, if lenient view is taken in imposing punishment. Punishment of removal for the act of misconduct is proportionate, deserving and reasonable. This Tribunal cannot give any valid reasons to impose lesser punishment than removal from service. So removal order passed by the management against the petitioner shall be confirmed. The petition is liable to be dismissed without giving any relief to the petitioner…..” .

¶8

He contended that a perusal of the above finding of the Tribunal goes to show that the 2^nd respondent observed that there is

¶9

¶10

an intention of misappropriation of the amount and mere intention is not sufficient for holding that the petitioner is guilty of misappropriation. The 2^nd respondent ought to have interfered with the punishment of removal by applying the proportionality theory. Therefore, ends of justice would be met if the case of the petitioner is considered for fresh appointment without any past service benefits.

¶11

The learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents submits that the 1^st respondent has imposed the punishment of removal from service for the proven misconduct in the enquiry and, therefore, the 2^nd respondent had rightly not interfered with the punishment of removal. There are no merits in the writ petition and the same is liable to be dismissed.

¶12

This Court, having considered the rival submissions made by the learned counsel for the respective parties, is of the considered view that the 2^nd respondent gave a finding that by making certain corrections in the S.R. there is only an intention of the petitioner to misappropriate the amount and there is no specific finding that the petitioner is involved in misappropriation. Therefore, the 2^nd respondent ought to have considered the case of the petitioner atleast for fresh appointment by applying the proportionality theory. Therefore, in order to give a quietus to this long pending case, the respondents are directed to consider the case of the petitioner for appointment afresh as a Conductor without any past service benefits, subject to medical fitness. It is made clear that the earlier service rendered by the petitioner i.e., prior to removal will be counted for the purpose of service benefits. However, the period

¶13

¶14

from the date of removal till fresh appointment will be treated as dies non , for which the petitioner is not entitled for any benefits.

¶15

With the above observations, this writ petition is disposed of.

¶16

No order as to costs.

¶17

Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.

¶18

____________________________ ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI, J

¶19

03-01-2020 Prv

B.Ramdas v. the Depot Manager and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

B.Ramdas v. the Depot Manager and Another

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

S. Sudhakar, Medak Dist. Vs the Managing Director, Apsrtc and 2 Others

N.Soma Kistaiah., Vs M.D.,a.P.State Co-Operative Bank.

T. Narasimha Reddy Hyderabad. Vs the Chairman and M.D.Transmission Corporation of A.P. Limited.

Chinthala Ramadevi Vs The State of Telangana

Gudla Venkatesham, Vs The Northern Power Distribution Company of Telangana Ltd.

Sd. Iqbal Ahemed Vs Assit Personnel Officer