Remanded

R.Gyaneshwar v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC15 Sept 2023WP/22630/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment involves a Junior Accountant removed from service after 30 years for unauthorized absence due to ill-health. The High Court set aside the Tribunal's order imposing removal and remanded the matter to impose compulsory retirement, citing proportionality and Supreme Court law.

What did the court decide?

Remanded to disciplinary authority to consider the case and impose compulsory retirement instead of removal.

R.Gyaneshwar Vs The State of Telangana — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

[³³¹⁸¹

¶2

I I I I I I I j I i l l

¶3

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

¶4

FRIDAY, THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAV]LI AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO: 2263O OF 2010

¶8

Between:

¶9

R.Gyaneshwar, S/o. -Radhakishan, Aged about 53 years, Occ: Senior Accountant (removed from Service) O/o.-Compitation erafi;h;disfi;ifre=airif, Hyderabad (Udcan), R/o H.No.2b_1_OZZAl, tniide-p,irairipodr, Hyderabad - 500 064

¶10

...PETITIONER

¶11

AND

¶12

1 . The state-of .Telang_ana, Rep. by its secretary to Government Finance & t-tanntng (Ftn. wrng) Department. Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad.

¶13

The Director of Treasuries and Accounts, State of Telangana, Hyderabad.

¶14

The Deputy Director, Drstrict treasury, Hyderabad (Urban) Compilation Branch, Hyderabad.

¶15

The Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunar, Rep. by its Registrar, purani Haveli, Hyderabad.

¶16

(Et-.rn9 B? C.T.is Amended as per Court Order Dated 14tj1t2o19 in l.A.No.l of 2019)

¶17

,..RESPONDENTS

¶18

Petition under Articre 226 of the constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High court may be pleased to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of certiorari calling for the records relating to and connected with the order of Hon'ble Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad dated 15.04.2009 rendered in o.A.No.6037 of 2007, the order in proceedings No.Kll(7) 1o'41ot2oo4 dated 2o.07.2007 of the 2nd respondent as confirmed by the 1st respondent in Memo.No.3214l428lA2lAdmn.uttzoot dated 20.12.2007 and quash or set aside the same with all consequential benefits.

¶19

¶20

Counsel for the petitioner: SMT K.RAJYA LAKSHMI

¶21

Counsel for the Respondent No.1 to 3: Gp FOR SERVICES_|

¶22

Counsel forthe Respondent No.4: _

¶23

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶24

¶25

/,/ /

¶26

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND^KUMARSHAVILI

¶27

AND

¶28

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU^{RAJESHWAR RAO} W.P.No.22630 of 2010

¶29

ORDER: fp". rr,,,^{'bte sn rrs\cp} Ki,,,.r shd,r/r/ ^btL,tut.t

¶30

This Writ Petition is filed aggrieved by^{thc orders of the A.P.} Adrninistrative T'ribunal. Ilyderahad^{( tor brevity 'the Tribunal') passed} in O.A.No.6037 of 2007^dt. l5-04-2009.

¶31

Heard Smt. K. Rajya Lakshmi,^{learned counselfor the} petitioner and the lcarned Govcrnnrent Pleader lor^Services-I, appearing lilr the resporrtlcttt^{Ntts.I to l.}

¶32

[t has lrccn e()r]tcrtdcd b1^{the petitioner that he was} appointed as Junior Acc()tnrlllnl^{rrith thc rcspondentson l9-01-1976} and afler rendcring considerablc^{lcngth of sen'icc, he was furthcr} promoted as Senior Accountant on^{23-12-1983.However. whilehe} was working, during July²⁰⁰ I.^{thc petitioncr had to remain absent} owning to ill-health as^{thc pctitionerrvassufl'ering fiom kidney} problem. hoart cliseasc and hlpcrtension^etc., I lou'ever, the disciplinary authorit) has construcd^{the same as mis-conductand} issucd charee nrclno on li-09-l(X)i.^{I hc pctiti<-rner submitteda}

t, I I I I I !

I l

ii I

"^{,,-;'il?;ifl,ijild}

¶38

detailed explanation de thr: ch21gs5 and durir disciprinary o.o.".r,n,n''nt pendcncy of rhc the petitioner t'atitl ed representation dt.2s-07 -2003."qr"rtin, tnt res'rondents ro retirc retirement basis. ,". : was not ..,,:,;.;;:'r; conduing ..r,u, .nrr,l.",t :" and lbr the proven rnir enquiry, the 2na."rror,'t' tT t"n"-"'n::;; punishment of removar uJenr-disciolin*' t"'tt vide procccding s dt.20-07-2007. Aggrieved by the same, rr' .espondent-disciplinary ot"t'ontt preferred an appeal and 11. 1.r urrt -- also plcased to disrniss rhe appeal vide orders dt.20-12-:::

¶39

Learned < o"rr' for the petitioncr ha rhe time of passing .", contended that at nou'' orders' the ot",,or".t corrrpletc. 30 -v,ears of service. ,o. "t'' the persons rvlto har e '-""t service, the discipr.inary ority oughr t" n"'" punishmenr in rhe fom ""ll-"1,^ffi: '^{o' compursory} retircrner lt and then the petitioner wourd have *o, retirementar berrefits.

¶40

Leamed cour '.::^0.,',,"r".^{has rl.her} conrended rhar rhe absence *", ,r,, ^^ll: not willful t ut o'vntrtg ro ifl-hcarth and the issue whether ttre ,a..n can bc treatr:d as unauth, or not was considered by the trtzctl abscncc Hon.ble Suprerne court irr Krushnakant

¶41

Y,/

¶42

AKS.J & RRN.J w P No.22610 ol20l0

¶43

¶44

B. Parmar v. Union of^{India andanotherr,, wherein the Supreme} Court has held that the^{absencervhichis willlulcan onlybe calledas} unauthorized absence,

¶45

Admittedty in the^{instant case,the petitioner hadto} remain absent owning to^{his ill-health and the disciplinaryauthority} has imposed^{a very harshpunishmentol rernovalwhich is not imposed} generally against the^{personswho have rendered 30 years servicewith} the respondents.^{Aggrieved by the orders ol the disciplinaryauthority} as confirmed by^{the appellateauthorit)'. thc pctitioncrhas approached} the Tribunal by^{filing O.A.No.6037of 2007 and the -fribunalvide} orders dt.l5-04-2009^{was pleased todismissO A} '^without appreciating any^{of the contentions raised b1'the pctitioner'Aggrieved} by the same, the^{present Writ Petition is tlted.}

¶46

Learned counsel^{lor the petitioncr hasfurthercontended} that punishment of^{removal is shockingly disproportionateto the} charges leveled^{againstthc pctitionerand thcrelbre'the ends of .iustice} wouldbemet,ifthematterisretnandedtothcdisciplinaryauthorityto impose appropriate^{punishmentas eompulsorl'retirementAs} adminedty, the^{petitionerhas completed 30} l^{ears ot' service withthe}

¶47

'^{Civil AppealNo.2l06 of2012dt.l5-02-2012}

¶48

¶49

^KS.t&^{RR</sup> \r l, \o lt6-]0 ol.t0t0 rl.}

¶50

respondcnts' appropriate orders be pass3d in the writ petition bv rerranding the mattcr to the respondents b.y considcring rhc casc of.the petrtioner on the grounds that the punishmr:nt of removal is shockin sly disproporlionate to the charges leveled ,lnd also the lact that the petttioner has rendered 30 years ofservice ernd also rn [enns of larv laid dorvn bv the Supreme Court in Krushnakant B. Parma r's case (supra)

¶51

8 I-earned Governrncnt pleader &rr rcspontlcnt Nos. i lo -.1 has contended that the petitioner has remained absent lbr rrorc than two )'ears and the disciplinary authoritv after conducting dctailed enqurrl and lor the proven misconduct in thc enquir1,. irnposcd pun ishrrrcn t o(' rernoval. I.herefore, punishmcnt ol' rcnror al is proportionatc to thc charges levelsd 3g31r,. thc petitioncr and rhc 'friburral rr as .justified in dismissing the O.A. prcferrcd br thc pctitiolrcr. l.hcrcfbre. there are no merits in the Writ l)clition arrd tirc sarne is liable to bc dismissed.

¶52

Ihis Court having considered the rival subrnissions made b), thc Icarned counsel on either side is ol the c,:nsidcred view that rhc -lribuna I ought to have interfered with the punrshment ol.rerrovai on the ground ol proporr iona Iity. as adrnittedly, th: petitioner has pur in

¶53

AKS,J & RRN.J W.P.No.22630 of20l0

¶54

¶55

30 years of service with the respondents and thc ends of .justice would be rnet if the disciplinary authoriry has imposed compulsory retirement by taking into account the law laid down by the Suprerne Court in

¶56

Krushnakanth B. Parmar's case (supra).

¶57

Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed ol and the impugned order dt. l5-04-2009 in O.A.No .6037 o12007 is set aside and the rnatter is remanded back to the respondent Nos.l ro 3-disciplinary authority to consider the case ol the petitioner alicsh tbr imposing cornpulsory retiremcnt by taking into account the larv laid dorvn by the Supreme Court in Krushnakanth B. Parmar's casc (supra). There

¶58

shall be no order as to costs.

¶59

It As a sequel, the miscellaneous pctitions pending. il any.

¶60

shall stand closed

¶61

SD/.C.PRAVEEN KUMAR ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY/I @ SECTION OFFICER

¶62

To,

¶63

The Secretary to Govemment Finance and Planning (Fin, Wing) Department Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad.

¶64

The Director of Treasuries and Accounts, State of Telangana, Hyderabad. 3. The Deputy Director, District treasury Hyderabad (Urban) Compilation Branch Hyderabad.

¶65

The Registrar, Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Purani Haveli, Hyderabad.

¶66

One CC to SRI K.RAJYA LAKSHMI, Advocate IOPUCI

¶67

Two CCs to GP FOR SERVICES-|, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad [OUT]

¶68

Two CD Copies.

BSR SB

HIGH COURT

DATED: 1510912023

'' -::-: -":-_ ':\ -
7'' -. --:-"'i 1- ,--'
/ .',,'
,....'
(u-
11 otI tu -l:
.))

¶73

ORDER

¶74

WP.No.22630 of 2010

¶75

DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETIITION, WITHOUT COSTS

¶76

\o
\
,\ \a\2

R.Gyaneshwar v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

R.Gyaneshwar v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

R.Raju Naik,S/o.K.Kurma Naik Vs The Deputy Commissioner of Police, Crimes,Hyderabad

Union of India Vs G. Yesumani

N.Ravi Kumar, Vs Union of India, rep.by the General Manager

P. Lokasvi Vs Dr. S. Sandhya

T. Dhangopal Rao Vs Sri. Ravi Gupta, IPS

Raj Kumar, S/o. Shiva Kumar Ram, Vs a. Srinivas, S/o A.T. Brahniam