Dismissed

Superintendent of Post Offices, Nalgonda Dist and 2 Others v. G. Linga Reddy, Nalgonda Dist and Ano

Telangana HC11 Sept 2023WP/16343/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This single-judge bench dismissed a writ petition challenging an order by the Central Administrative Tribunal that remanded a disciplinary case involving a postmaster to the disciplinary authority to reconsider the punishment of removal due to disproportionality and pre-retirement status.

What the court decided

AI extract

Superintendent of Post Offices, Nalgonda Dist and 2… — Service and Employment | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

[³³¹⁸ ]

¶2

HIGH COURT FOR TI{E STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶4

MONDAY,THE ELEVENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO: 16343 OF 2014

¶8

Between:

¶9

1 . The Superintendent_of Post Officer, Nalgonda Division, Nalgonda District. 2. The Director of Postal Services, A.p Northern (Hyderabad), Region, Hyderabad-500001 .

¶10

The Union of lndia Rep. by Director General posts-lndia, Dak Bhavan, NewDelhi-1.

¶11

...PET|TIONERS

¶12

AND

¶13

1. L.inga Rerldy, S/o Late Raji Reddy, Aged about 65 years, Occ Branch Postmaster, Parupally BO, a/w Raghunalhapuram SO, Bhongir HO, Nalgonda District.

¶14

Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench, HACA Bhavan, Hyderabad Rep. by its Registrar.

¶15

...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to lssue an order or direction more particularly in the nature of writ of certiorari calling for the records pe(aining to the order dated 02.07.2o13 in oA No.32712011 of Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench, Hyderabad and quash the same as illegal, arbitrary, contrary to law and unconstitutional

¶16

l.A. NO: 1 OF 2014(WPMP . NO: 20280 OF 2014)

¶17

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 to suspend the operation of the order dated O2.O1 .2013 in OA No.32712011 ot Hon'ble Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench, Hyderabad pending disposal of the Writ petition

¶18

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRl. cADt PRAVEEN KUMAR,

¶19

i^{DEPUWSOL|C|TOR GENERAL OF IND]A} Counsel for the Respondent No.1: SRl. M. VENKANNA Counsel for the RespondentlNo.2: - The Court made the following: ORDER

¶20

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI

¶21

AND

¶22

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJESHU/AR RAO

¶23

Writ Petition No.16343 of 2Ol4

¶24

ORDER : lPer Hon'ble Sn Justice Abhi and Kumar Strc,u l

¶25

This Writ Petition is filed by the petitioners under Article-226 of the Constitution of India seeking a 'Writ of Certiorari'by calling for records relating to the order passed b), Central Administrative Tribunal (for short, the Tribunal'), Hyderabad in O.A.No.327 r>f 2Oll, datedO2.O7.2O13 and to quash the same.

¶26

Heard the learned Deputy Solicitor General of India appea-ring for the petitioners and Mr. M Venkanna, learned counsel for the 1.t respondr:nt.

¶27

Learned Deputy Solicitor Genera,l o[ India appearing for the petitioners had contended that the 1", respondent was appointed as Branch Post Master and he was indulged in cash irregularities ald the same was construed as misconduct and thr: charge memo, dated 16.O6.2O09 was issued againsl. the l"t respondent. After conducting a detailed enquiry zrnd

¶28

¶29

AKs,J & RRN,] u,p i6343:Oi4

¶30

for the proven misconduct, the disciplinary authority has imposed a punishment of removal from service against the 1"t respondent vicle orders, dated 30.03.2010. Aggrieved by the said orders, the 1"r respondent has preferred a-rr appeal ancl the appellate authorit5r has also rejected his appeal vide orders, dated 29.OT.2}rc. Later, he challenged the orders of remova_l before the Tribuna_l by liling O.A.No.327 of 2OII and the Tribunal was pleasecl to dispose of the said O.A vide orders, daLed C2.A7.2OL3 by directing the petitioners to reconsider thc punishment of removal on the ground of proportionality anc remanded the matter back to the petitioners Lo impose any other lesser punishment, as the 1"r respondent has attained the age of super a_nnuation, without appreciating any of the contentions raised by the petitioners.

¶31

Learned counsel for the petitioners had further contended that as the charge levelled against the 1"r respondent was held to be proved in the enquiry, the disciplinary authority was justified in imposing a

¶32

AKS,j & RRN,J \1,p 16343 2014

¶33

¶34

punishment of removal, as the allegation levelled against the 1"r respondent is that he was involved in hnancial irregularities. Therefore, appropriate orders be passed in the writ petition by setting aside the orders passed by the Tribunal in O.A.No.32T of 2Oll, dated O2.O7.20 13 and allow the writ petition.

¶35

On the other hand, learned counsel fr:r ths 1sr respondent had contended that the hnancia.l irregularities have taken place not by the 1", respondent, but by a substitute u,ho was discharging his duties in the absence of the 1"r respondent and the 1", respondent has rendered 37 years of service. The Tribuna,l was justilied 1n interfering with the punishment of removal from service on the ground of proportionality and by the time the O.A was adjudicated, the 1"t respondent has attained rhe age of super annuation also. Therefore, the Tribrrnal was justilied 1n disposing of the O.A by remalding the matter back to the petitions to impose any otl-rer lesser punishment commensurate to the charges levelled

¶36

AKS, ] & RRN,] ,,'p t6343 2Ol4

¶37

¶38

against the lst r:espondent. Therefore, there afe no merits in the writ petition and the saine is liable to be dismissed.

¶39

This Court, having considered the rival submissions made by both the parties, is of the vieu, theit the financial irregularities have taken place not bythe lst respondent, but by a- substitute vuho was dischai:ging his duties and the 1., rcspondent lvas not directly involved in the said hnancial irrcgularities and he has also rendered 37 vears of selzice as on the date of removal, Therefore, thc Tribunal r'.yas .iustified 1n remanding the matter back to the petitioners to impose anJr other lesser pu-nishlnent commensuratc to the charges levelled against the 1"t rcspondcnt and the Tribunal has come to a conclusion that the punishment is shockingly disproportionate and the 1"t respondent has rendered 37 years of service ald he also attained the age of super annuation. Hence, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the orders passed by the Tribunal.

¶40

AKs,J & RRN,] wc 16343 2014

¶41

¶42

¶43

With these observations, the Writ Pr:tition is

¶44

dismissed. No costs.

¶45

As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending

¶46

if any, shall stand closed.

¶47

SD/. T. JAYASRE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// ./../ SECT6(oFFIcER

¶48

To,

¶49

The Reigstrar,Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench, HACA Bhavan, Hyderabad

¶50

One CC to SRl. GADI PRAVEEN KUIMAR, DEPUTY SOLICITOR GENERAL OF INDIA Advocate [OPUC]

¶51

One CC to SRl. tV. VENKANNA, Advocate [OPUC]

¶52

Two CD Copies BIVI

HIGH COURT

DATED:1110912023

f'. '- .: . '- ":. I A i r- - Jj--.' ,-<br>ll
I
11 $tI1m

¶58

ORDER

¶59

WP.No.16343 of 2014

¶60

DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS Ue-, 6Ats

Superintendent of Post Offices, Nalgonda Dist and 2 Others v. G. Linga Reddy, Nalgonda Dist and Ano

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Superintendent of Post Offices, Nalgonda Dist and 2 Others v. G. Linga Reddy, Nalgonda Dist and Ano

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Devathoti Dhanaraju Vs R.Muthyala Raju, I.A.S

K. Ravinder Vs Smt. Ranjeev R.Acharya, IAS

P. Dhanalakshmi Vs Smt. Ranjeev R.Acharya, IAS

The State of a.P.,Transport,Randb.,Hyd.,and Anr. Vs Sri B. Manikyam, Hyderabad, and 2 Otrs.

Dr. Uzma Viquar Vs The Director

Prl. Secy., Secondary Education Dept. and 2 Ors. Vs Rayala Bhaskar Rao and Ano.