Allowed

Prl.Secy, H.M.F.W.Dept., and Another v. Dr.D.Noorjahan and Another

Telangana HC28 Oct 2022WP/33616/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition, the High Court found the Tribunal erred in setting aside the entire punishment for unauthorized absence instead of remanding to the disciplinary authority. Given the respondent's retirement, the court modified the punishment, removing the 'cumulative effect' to prevent premium payment for misconduct.

What did the court decide?

The punishment of stoppage of seven annual grade increments with cumulative effect is modified to stoppage of seven annual grade increments without cumulative effect.

Prl.Secy, H.M.F.W.Dept., and Another Vs… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2022)

¶1

[³³¹⁸ ]

¶2

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶3

FRIDAY, THE TWENry EIGHTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY TWO

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI AND

¶6

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO: 336'16 OF 2 011

¶8

Between:

¶9

'1 . The Government of Andhra Prades,h, Rep. by its principal Secretary to govt., Health, Medical & Family Welfare Depirtment, Secretariat^'Buildings, Hyderabad.

¶10

The Director of Public Health & Family Welfare, Andhra pradesh, Hyderabad.

¶11

...PETITIONERS

¶12

AND

¶13

DR.D. N^oorjahan, Wo- Dr.Mehaboob Working as Medical Officer, Urban Health Centre, Parvathinagar, Hyderabad pr6senily working at Dlstrici Hospital, King Koti, Hyder,bad.

¶14

2, The Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad, Rep.by its Registrar, Purana haveli, Hyderabad.

¶15

...RESPONDENTS

¶16

Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fited therewith, the High court may be pleased to issue a writ or order or direction particularly one in the nature of writ of certiorari calling for the records relating to and connected with the order dated 29.04.2011 in o.A.No.1303i2008 on the file of the Hon'ble Andhra pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad.

¶17

l.A. NO: 1 OF 2011(WPMP. NO :41796 OF 2011)

¶18

Petition under Section 151 cPc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased suspend the operation of the orders dated 29.04.2011 in o.A.No.1303/2008 on the Hon'ble Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad pending disposal of the writ petition.

¶19

Counsel for the Petitioners: GP FOR SERVICES I

¶20

Counsel for the Respondents: NONE APPEARED

¶21

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶22

HON'BLE SRI JUS'II CE ABI-IINAND KUMAR SHA'ILI AND IION,BLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAV,,\ITAPU IL,\JESHWAR RAO

¶23

!(/.P.No.33616 OF 2011

¶24

ORDER: (PerIlott'ble SiJustice Abhinand Kurner Shavili)

¶25

Aggrieved by the order dated 29.042011 passed in O.ANo.130l of 2008 by the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Hlderabad, the present u,rit petition has been filed.

¶26

F{eard leamed Govemment Pleader for Services-I appearing for the petitioners.

¶27

It is the case of the petitionen that the 1" respondent was appointed as Medical Officer and she has absented herself from duties unauthorurdly trorr. 15.06.1994 to 75.06.1996 and again {rom 01.12.1995 to 18.09.2002. Flence, the disciplinary authoriry has initiated disciplinary proceedings against the 1" respondent and after conducting deailed enquiry and for the proven misconduct, the disciplnary authority has imposed the punishment of stoppage of seven annual grade increments with cumulative effect besides treating the absence period as dies non ide proceedings darcd 26.10.2003. Aggrieved by the same, the

¶28

\ .,L

¶29

1,, respondent has approached the Tribunal by^filing O.ANo.13O3 of 2008 and the Tribunal vide oxder dated 29.04.2011set aside the punishment on the ground that the enquiry was not conducted in accordance with Rule 20 of CCARules.

¶30

kamed courrsel appearing for the petitionen had contended that if the Tribunal has come to such a conclusion, in all faimess, the Tribunal ought to have remanded the mater back to the disciplinary authoriry so as to enable the disciplinary authority to conduct enquiry x per the Rules and pass appropriate orden. But the unauthorized absence of the 1" respondent cannot be regularized as admittedly the 1.. respondent is working as Itdedical Officer and because of tle conduct of the 1" respondent in remaining absent un-authorizedly, the patients have suffered a lot. Therefore, appropriate orden be passed in the writ petition by setting aside the order passed bythe Tribunal

¶31

Fhving considered the said submissions, this Coun is of the view that the Tribunal erred in setting aside the entire punishment order. If the enquiry was not properly

\ \

I I

conducted, the Tribunal ought to have remanded the matter back to the disciplinary authoriry. But in the irstant case, during pendency of the writ petition, the 1., respondent hx retied from service and the 1.,t respondent is now aged abou 62 yean and remanding the matter back at this stage rrury not survive [or any purpose. In order to give a quietus to the long pending Iitigation, this C-oun is of the view that the punishment as imposed by the disciplinary authoriry i.e., stopp€e of seven annual grade increments with cumulative effect can be modified to that of stoppage of seven annual grade increments without cumulative effect. This modification order is passed only by taking into consideration the fact that the 1,, respondent has retied from service. If the entie punishment is set aside, then the 1* respondent would be paid premium for her misconduct. Admittedly, the 1., respondent has remained absent to her duties un-auhorizeldy for very long time. the W.rit Petition is disposed of and the punishment of stoppage of seven annual grade increments with cumulative effect is modified to that of without cumulative effect. No costs.

¶37

¶38

¶39

Miscellaneou petitions, if any, pending shali stand

¶40

closed.

¶41

SD/.I. NAGALAKSHMI DEPUTY REGISTRAR

¶42

//TRUE COPY//

¶43

SECTION OFFICER

¶44

To, 1. The Registrar' Andhra^{Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad, Purana} haveli, Hyderabad. 2.TwoCCstoGPFORSERV|CESl,HighCourtfortheStateofTelangana,at Hyderabad [OUT]

¶45

Two CD CoPies 4. One Spare^CoPY

Psk. GJP ek*

HIGH COURT

DATEO:2811012022

ORDER

WP.No.33616 of 2011

at '/\<br>' (,)
F sff (J
.o.:. F, r'-: .Y l
-L; ,'
l.| t,/
,r)/
1:r i1*\v' 1.'
i::t-

¶52

Disposing of The W.P Without costs.

¶53

@
c5 l2']2-2''
EK.

Prl.Secy, H.M.F.W.Dept., and Another v. Dr.D.Noorjahan and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Prl.Secy, H.M.F.W.Dept., and Another v. Dr.D.Noorjahan 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

The Secy to Govt. Gad, Hyderabad. Vs Smt.v.Adilaxmi Devi, Hyderabad.

Prl. Secretary, Environment, Forests Dept., Hyderabad and 3 Ot Vs D. Veeraiah, Khammam District and Another

The Chief Executive Officer, Vs B. Shravan Kumar and 2 Others

Syed Abdul Haleem Magrabi, Hyderabad Vs Registrar, A.P. Administrative Tribunal, Hyd and 3 Oth

The State of a.P., Home Dept., Hyd and 3 Othrs Vs Sri Y. Krishna Reddy, Khm Dist. and Ano

G.Ramesh Vs the Govt of A.P and Another