Dismissed

The Union of India v. M.A. Jabbar

Telangana HC5 Oct 2023WP/19614/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Writ Petition challenging the Central Administrative Tribunal’s order reducing punishment due to ill-health. The Court dismissed the petition, allowing the relief but setting aside consequential benefits and directing the authorities to consider compulsory retirement.

What did the court decide?

The Court directed the petitioners to consider imposing compulsory retirement. Consequential benefits from the Tribunal order relating to arrears of salary were set aside, while the pensionary period

The Union of India Vs M.A. Jabbar — Service and Employment | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

t³³¹⁸¹

¶3

HIGH COURT^{FORTHE STATE OF TELANGANA} AT HYOERABAD (SPecial Original^{Jurisdiction)}

¶4

THURSDAY,^{THE FIFTH DAY OF OCTOBER} TWO THOUSAND^{AND TWENryTHREE}

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE^{SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI} AND THE HONOURABLE^{SRIJUSTIC'd I'IAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO}

¶7

WRIT PETI^{TION NO:1 96140F 2021}

¶8

Between:

¶9

l.TheUnionoflndia,representedbyDirectorGeneral'Posts'Departmentof ' p'.ilti'ol[ Bir;';;,'l,'s;ht;d Mars' New Delhi-100⁰⁰¹

¶10

The Director^{of Postal Services'Oio The Postmaster General' Head Quarters}

¶11

Region, HYderabad 500 001'

¶12

The Senior^{Superintendent of Post Offices', Secunderabad PostalDivision'} " o i"p"i-rL-,jt Jt Foti"-i"ol'i,'ci no n i n a s a r'^H vd^{e ra bad50 00 8 0.}

¶13

...PETITIONERS

¶14

AND

¶15

lf"g:'J,3:,?3,ii[X.]''.t'r1'Jl-rfl',",t$!1li:!f^{'#fi "'ip"ilJl?ll":} i;:i;;,6ftH'P;;-d,-F;.h";fi^{;"i;|il;; G'tesiniinnasar'Hvderabad-500} 018

¶16

...RESPONDENTS

¶17

PetitionunderArticle226oftheConstitutionoflndiaprayingthatinthe circumstances^{stated in the affidavitfiled therewith'the High Court may be} pleased to issue^{an order or direction more particularlyone in the nature of Writ of} Certioraricallingfortherecordspertainingtotheorderdaled24.0l-2020passed ino.A.No.Sg}tzol4onthefileoftheHon'bleCentralAdministrativeTribunal' Hyderabad^{Bench, Hyderabad and quash the same as illegal' arbitrary'contrary to} law and unconstitutional

¶18

lA NO:^{1oF 2021}

¶19

Petition under^{Section151 CPC prayingthat rn the circumstances statedin} the affidavit^{filed in support of the petition the High Court maybe pleasedto}

¶20

suspend the^{operationof the order dated 24-01-2020passedin O A' No 598 of} 2014^{passedby the Hon'ble Central AdministrativeTribunal'HyderabadBench'} Hyderabad^{pendingdisposal of Writ petition'}

¶21

Counsel^{for the Petitioners:SRIGADI PRAVEENKUMAR' DEPUTY SOLICITOR} GENERAL^{OF INDIA}

¶22

Counsel^{for the Respondent:SRIM' VENKANNA}

¶23

The Court^{made the following: ORDER}

¶24

ll rl l

¶25

lr L

¶26

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE^{ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI} AND THE HON'BLE SRI^{JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO}

¶27

WRIT PETITI^{ON No.19614 0Fo2l}

¶28

9B9,EB:^{(Per AKS,J)}

¶29

This Writ Petition is^{filed aggrieved by the order,dated} 24.01.2020,^pasded in^{O.A.No.201598/2014bv the Central} Administrative Tribunal,^{HyderabadBench. Hyderabad(for short,} 'the Tribunal').

¶30

Heard the learned^{Deputy Solicitor General ofIndia} appearing for the^{petitioners and Sri M. Venkanna, learned counsel} for the respondent.

¶31

Learned Deputy Solicitor^{General of India appearingfor the} petitioners had contended that the^{respondentwas working as a} Postmanwiththepetitioners.HeremainedUnaUthorizedlyabsent to duties from O1'09.2008^{to30.11.2008, 01'03'2009 to} 10.08.2009 and again^{from 15.09.2009to 08'03'2013'The} disciplinary authority,^{construingthe same as misconduct, initiated} disciplinary^proceedings against^{the respondentby issuing a} charge memo on 08.03.2013.^{The respondenthas submitted} explanation denying the charges^{Ievelled against him'Not} satisfied with the explanation^{submitted by the respondent,the} disciplinary authority has appointed^{an Enquiry Officer to conducta}

¶32

AKS.J & RRN,J 2 w P.N.,.19614 of 2O2l

¶33

detailed enquiry and the^Enquiry Officer^{conducted a detailed} enquiry and submitted report, dated^{06.07.2013,holdingthat the} charges levelled against the^{respondentwere proved The} respondent also admitted the charges before the^{Enquiry Officer.} Based upon the^{proven misconductin the enquiry,the disciplinary} authority has imposed^punishment of^{removalfrom service on the} respondent vide^proceedings, dated^{21.10.2013.Aggrieved by the} same, the respondent^preferred an^{appeal before the appellate} authority and the appellate^{authoritywas pleasedto dismiss the} appeal vide order, dated^{24.03.2Ot4.Aggrieved by the same,the} respondent approached the Tribunal by^{filing the subject} O.A.No.2Ol598/2014 and^{the Tribunal, vde impugnedorder, dated} 24.O1.2020, was^pleased to allow the^{subject O.A. in favour of the} respondent by following the law laid down^{by the Honourable} Supreme Court in Krushnakanth^{B Parmar and another v.} Union of India^L and directed the^{petitionersto modify the} punishment of removal from service to any other^lesser punishment other than removal or dismissal from service,^{on the} ground that the punishment of removal is^shockingly d isproportionate to the charges levelled^{against the respondent.}

¶34

Learned Deputy Solicitor General of India further contended that the respondent had remained unauthorizedly absent^on

¶35

L(10[) ] s(c I-S

¶36

AKS,J & RRN,J w.l'. No l96l'+ of 2021

¶37

¶38

¶39

various spells and^{becauseof the absence of the respondent' the} petitioners were^put to^{severe inconvenience'As admittedlythe} respondent has^{remainedabsent himself From duties'without} applying leave,^{it is a grave misconduct and the Tribunalought not} to have interfered^{with the punishmentof removaland directed} the^{petitionersto} modify the^{punishmentto some other lesser} than removal or^{dismissalfrom service} punishment other Therefore, appropriate^{ordersbe passed in the Writ Petitionby} setting aside^{the impugned order, dated 24'Ol'2O2O' and allow the} Writ Petition.

¶40

On the other^{hand,learned counsel for the respondenthad} contended that the^{respondent had to remain absentowing to his} ill-health. As^{admittedly the absence of the respondentwas not} willful, but owing^{to his ill-health, the Tribunal was justifiedin} allowing the^{subject O.A. in favour of the respondent' by following} the law laid down^{by the HonourableSupremeCourt in} Krushnakanth^{B Parmar's case (supra)'The Tribunal has also} considered the^{case of the respondent on the groundof} proportionality and the^{Tribunal felt that the punishmentof} removal is^{shockinglyd isproportion ate to the charges levelled} againsttherespondent.Theabsenceoftherespondentcannotbe treatedaswillful,asadmittedly,hewashaVinghealthissues.

¶41

AKS,J & RRN,J W I'] No.l96l4 of 2O21

¶42

¶43

Therefore, there are no merits in the Writ Petition and the same is liable to be dismissed.

¶44

This Court, having considered the rival submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties, is of the view that the Tribunal was^justified in allowing the subject O.A. in favour of the respondent by following the law laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court in Krushnakanth B Parmar's case (supra). The Tribunal rightly observed that the absence of the respondent is not willful, but owing to his ill-health and that the punishment of removal from service imposed on the respondent is shockingly disproportionate to the charges levelled against him. However, the Tribunal ought not to have awarded consequential benefits, as admittedly, the respondent had remained absent himself from duties. Therefore, such portion of the impugned order, dated 24.O1.2O2O, where the Tribunal has extended the consequential benefits to the respondent is set aside and the^petitioners shall consider the case of the respondent in terms of the order. dated 24.01.2O2O, passed by the Tribunal, however, without consequential benefits. It is made clear that the out of employment^period should be counted for the^purpose oF^pension and^pensionary benefits only, but not for arrears of salary.

¶45

5 AKS,J & RRN,J W.P.No.l96l4 of 2021

¶46

7, At this stage, we were inFormed by the^{learned counsel for} the respondent that the^{respondenthas already attainedthe age} of superannuation. In view of the same, the only^punishment which can be imposed on the respondent is compulsory retirement. Therefore, the respondents are directed to explore the^possibility of imposing the^punishment of compulsory retitement on the respondent, in view of the fact that the respondent has already attained the age of superannuation.

¶47

With the above observations/directions, the Writ Petition^is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶48

Miscellaneous Applications, if any,^pending in this^Writ Petition, shall stand closed.

¶49

SD/-K.SREERAMA^MURTHY //TRUE COPY'/ ASSISTAAIT REGISTRARqa SECTION OFFICER

¶50

To, ,l-oneCCtoSriGadiPraveenKumar,DeputySolicitorGeneraloflndia IOPUCI 2 6ne-Ct to Sri^{M. Venkanna' Advocate} [OPUC]

¶51

Two CD CoPies

TJ BS

I I

HIGH COURT

DATED:0511012023

ORDER

WP.No.19614^{of 2021}

¶59

SlATE
12 Nil'I :S1 lto
r) I
i
Di.s('

¶60

DISPOSTNG^{OF THE WRIT PETITION} WITHOUT^COSTS.

¶61

d.6

The Union of India v. M.A. Jabbar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Union of India v. M.A. Jabbar

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

J.Posetty Vs The. State of Telangana

Government of Telangana Vs K. Ilaiah

R. Vijaya Lakshmi Vs The District Prohibition and Excise officer

Narra Ram Reddy Vs The State of Telangana

Utkur Sumathamma Vs The State of Telangana

The Engineer-in-Chief, Vs J. Haribabu S/O J. Ramakrishna