Dismissed

M. Chenna Reddy, Hyd v. the Senior Superintendent of Post Offices, Karimnagar Andano

Telangana HC25 Jul 2022WP/17474/2006

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Telangana addressed a Writ Petition seeking to quash an order of compulsory retirement and reinstatement. The Court relied on an Supreme Court decision to dismiss the petition, holding that criminal acquittal does not automatically mandate reinstatement in departmental proceedings.

What did the court decide?

No benefit of the doubt is to be given to the petitioner merely on the basis of criminal acquittal; the Writ Petition is dismissed with no costs.

M. Chenna Reddy, Hyd Vs the Senior… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2022)

¶1

HIGIT COURI' T'OR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶2

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶3

MONDAY.TIIIT'|WENTY FIF-|FI DAY OF JULY IWO TIIOUSAND AND TWENTY TWO

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI AND

¶6

THE IIONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.V.SHRAVAN KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO: 17474 OF 2006

¶7

Between:

¶8

M. Chenna Reddy, S/o. Sri M. Ramakoti Reddy, Compulsory Retired Postal Assistant, Huzaurabad HO, presently residing At RTC Colony, Ramanthapur, Hyderabad.

¶9

...PETTTIONEIT

¶10

AND

¶11

The Senior Superintendent OfPosl Offices, Karimnagar, Peddapalli Division, Karimnagar District.

¶12

The Principal Chief Post Master General, A.P. Circle, Hyderabad.

¶13

...RESPONDENTS

¶14

Petition under Article 226 ol the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue Writ, Order or direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Certiorari calling lor the rccords in respect of the orders passed in OA No. 203 of 2006 dated 5-4-2006 on the file ol the. Hon'ble Central Administration Tribunal Hyderabad Bench, Hyderabad and quash the same and further declare that the Porceedings No. STiVP-09/2005 dated 3-8-2005 is iltegal, arbitrary and to set aside the same consequently direcl the respondents to reconsider and review the punishment or compulsory retirement imposed against the petitioners in the light of the Judgment in CC.No.l327 ol 1996 dated l6-08-2004.

¶15

Counsel for the Petitioner(s):SRI. CH RAVINDER

¶16

Counsel for the Respondents: Ms ANITA, REP FOR RAMA RAO GANTANNAGARI

¶17

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶18

¶19

THE HON'BI,E SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI

¶20

AND

¶21

THE HON',BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. SHRA'VAN KUMAR Writ PetitionNo.L7474 of 20O6

¶22

ORDER : (l)er I lon'ble Justice Abhinand Kumar Shautli)

¶23

This Writ Petition is filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a Writ of Certiorari calling for the records in respect of the order passed rn O.A.No.203 of 2006 dated 05.04.2006 on the file o1' the Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench, Hyderabad and quash the same; to declare the proceedings No.ST/VP-0912OO5, dated 03.08.2005 as illegal, arbitrary and to set aside the same; and consequently direct the respondents to reconsider and review the punishment or compulsory retirement imposed against the petitioner in the light of the judgment in C.C.No.1327 of 1996, dated 16.08.2004.

¶24

I I

¶25

..)..

¶26

AKS,J & NVSK,J wP-17474_2006

¶27

Heard Mr. Ch. Ravinder, learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms. Anita, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Mr. G. Rama Rao, learned counsel for the respondents.

¶28

Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that petitioner was working as 'Postal Assistant' with the respondent-Department; the disciplinary authority initiated disciplinary proceedings alleging that petitioner had tampered the parcel containing arswer sheets and replacing the answer sheets while the same were in custody of the petitioner; in the departmental enquiry, the said charge was proved, and basing upon the proven misconduct in the disciplinary enquiry, the disciplinary authority imposed major punishment of 'removal from service'; criminal proceedings were also initiated against the petitioner in C.C.No.l327 of 1996 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Peddapalli; in the said criminal proceedings, the petitioner was acquitted by the competent Criminal

¶29

¶30

AKS,] & NVSK,J -l \,p _17 47 4 _2A06

¶31

¶32

Court vide order dated L6.O8.2OO4 in C.C.No.1327 of t996.

¶33

Learned counsel for the petitioner further contended that petitioner preferred appeal to the 2"a respondent-Appellate Authority, and the Appellate Authority was pleased to modifr the punishment of remova,l to that of 'compulsory retirement'; after the acquittal by the competent Criminal Court in the above referred case, petitioner submitted €ln application dated 07 .O9.2OO4 to the 2"d respondent-Appellate Authority seeking review of the punishment order in the light of acquittal by the Criminal Court; but the 2"d respondent-Appellate Authority, vide order dated 03.08.2OO5. rejected the case of petitioner and declined to modify the punishment ol 'compulsory retirement'.

¶34

Learned counsel for the petitioner lurther contended that challenging the rejection order dated O3.OB.2OO5 passed by the 2"d respondent-Appellate

¶35

¶36

{ AK5,] & NVSK,] wp 17474-2006

¶37

Authority, petitioner has filed Original Application No.203 of 2006 before the Central Administrative Tribuna,l, Hyderabad Bench, Hyderabad; the learned Tribunal, without appreciating any of the contentions raised by the petitioner, had mechanically dismissed the O.A.; the disciplinary authority has initiated disciplinary proceedings for the identical charges as that of criminal case and the petitioner was acquitted in the criminal case; the appellate authority ought to have taken into account the acquittal of petitioner by the criminal court and ought to have set aside the orders o[ compulsory retirement and reinstated the petitioner into service; and therefore, prayed this Court to pass appropriate orders by setting aside the impugned order dated 03.08.2005 passed by the 2"d respondent-Appellate Authority and to further declare the petitioner as being entitled for reinstatement into service till he attained the age of superannuation.

¶38

-v

¶39

AKS,J & NVSK,J wP ]7 47 4_)006

¶40

¶41

¶42

On the other hand, learned <:ounsel for the respondents contended that petitioner was never tried identica-l set of charges by the Criminal Court as well as in the departmental proceedings; the disciplinary proceedings are altogether a different thing, and it has no comparison to that of criminal proceedings; petitioner was tried under Sections 380 ard 120-B of Indian Penal Code, 1860, and if one were to look into the charges in the departmental enquiry and in the criminal case, they are quite differ,:nt; so, mere acquittal in a crimina-l case would not entitle the petitioner to get the benefit of reinstatement into setwice by modi$ing the punishment of 'compulsory retirement'.

¶43

Learned counsel for the respondents further contended that petitioner is getting pension as he has put in (26) years of service, and the learned Tribunal was^justified in dismissing the O.A.; the Tribunal has also looked into the decision of the Honble Apex Court

¶44

AK5,J & NVSK,J wp_17474-2006

¶45

¶46

in vs. G Cholan Roadways Ltd.,

¶47

Thirugnanasambandaml, wherein the Honble Apex Court had categorically held that acquittal of an employee in a criminal case per se would not bind the emploger and does not automatically give the emplogee the right to be reinstated into service; the learned Tribunal has considered all the factors and accordingly dismissed the O.A.; and therefore, there are no merits in the Writ Petition and the same is liable to be dismissed.

¶48

This Court, after considering the rival submissions made on either side, is of the considered view that the learned Tribunal has rightly dismissed the O.A. preferred by the writ petitioner by relying on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Cholan Roadways Ltd (1 supra).

¶49

Therefore, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the order passed by the learned Tribuna,l, and the

¶50

' [2oo5⁽¹⁾ SLR (S.C.) 612]

¶51

AKS,J & NVSK, J v\ p _17 47 4 -2006

¶52

¶53

¶54

learned Tribr-rnal was rightly justified in dismissing the o.A.

¶55

Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs.

¶56

As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending if any in this Writ Petition, shall stand closed.

¶57

To,

¶58

SD/-K.SHY ISI{ I DEPUTY RECI R //TRUE COPY/I SECI'ION OFFICER

¶59

l. One CC ro SRI. CH R.AVINDER Advocate tOpUCl 2. Two CC to SRI. RAMA RAO GANTANNAGARI Advocare tOpUCl 3. Two CD Copies On" Spare Copy ,O{. SB

HIGH^(-OTIR T

DATED:25107 /2422

ORDEII

-a
,\E' sfir
,a
:J,
''1 ?'l ..ut-t ?$il
'i. {

¶65

WP.No.l7474 of 2006

¶66

WP IS DISMISSED WITHOUT COSTS

¶67

6
.a",---
aeluIo--
9)

M. Chenna Reddy, Hyd v. the Senior Superintendent of Post Offices, Karimnagar Andano

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M. Chenna Reddy, Hyd v. the Senior Superintendent of Post Offices, Karimnagar Andano

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Government of Andhra Pradesh, Vs A.P. Rao, S/o. A.V. Rao

V. Laxmana Chary, Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh

G. Ananth Reddi, Vs Government of Andhra Pradesh

G. Narasimhulu and 9 Others Vs G.R. Chalapathi Rao and 5 Others

M.Latha D/o M.Balaraju Vs The State of Telangana

M.R. Reddy, Medak District Vs the Chief Executive Officer, Medak District and 2 Others