Dismissed

Union of India v. S.Bhanu Priya

Telangana HC17 Oct 2023WP/4913/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Telangana dismissed a writ petition filed by BSNL and Union of India challenging an Order of the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) Hyderabad Bench. The CAT had quashed the dismissal of an employee on the ground of proportionality. The High Court upheld the CAT's decision.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was dismissed, upholding the CAT Order that set aside the dismissal of the employee.

Union of India Vs S.Bhanu Priya — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

[3318 ]

¶2

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE^{OF TELANGANAAT HYDERABAD} (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶3

TUESDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH^DAY OF^OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE^{ABHINANO KUMAR SHAVILI} AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE^{NAMAVARAPURAJESHWARRAO}

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO: 4913 OF 2023

¶7

Between:

¶8

Union of lndia, rep. by^{its Chairmanand l\4anaging Director, BharatSanchar} Nigam Limited, Corporate^{Offrce,BarakambaRoad,New Delhi}

¶9

The Chief General Manager.^{AndhraPradesh Telecom Circle (BSNL), Door} Sanchar Bhavan, Nampally^{Station Road,Abids,Hyderabad500 O01}

¶10

The General lt4anager^{(CFA) (South)BSNL, I\Ialakpet, Hyderabad - 500 036}

¶11

The Assistant General^{Nrlanager(OP & A), BSNL, O/o. General Manager} (South) BSNL, [\rlalakpet, Hyderabad -^{500 036}

¶12

The Sub-Divisional Engineer^{(Admn) (South), O/o. Generalfvlanager (South),} BSNL, Malakpet, Hyderabad^{500 036}

¶13

...PETITIONERS

¶14

AND

¶15

S.Bhanu Priya, W/o. Late^{Syed Sarwar Ali, Aged about 47 yearc,Occ.} Reoular MalOoor.^(Under the orders^{of removal),O/o. GeneralManager} (So-uth), BSNL, lrilalakpet, Hyderabad 500 036 Rl/o- 34-5112' Vivekahandapuram, Sainikpuri.^{Secunderabad500 094.}

¶16

2 The Central Administrative^{Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench, HyderabadRep. By} its Registrar.

¶17

...RESPONDENTS

¶18

Petition under Article 226 of^{the Constitution of lndia praying that in the} circumstances^- stated in the^{affidavitfiled therewith, the High Court maybe} pleased to issue any order, direction or writ^{particularlyonein the natureof writ} of certiorari under Article^{226 0f Constitutionof lndia, to call for the records} pertaining to the order dated 14-03-2022 in^{O.A. No .115712016 of the central} Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad^{Bench, at Hyderabadand quash the same} declaring as illegal, arbitrary and^without .iurisdiction^{by confirming the} punishment imposed by the^petitioners herein

¶19

lA NO:1 OF 2023

¶20

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fileci in support of the petition, the Higlh Courl m:ry be pleased to suspend the order dated^'14-03-2022 in O.A No.1 15712016 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench, al Hyderabad. pending the writ petition.

¶21

Counsel for the Petitioners: SMT P.SARADA, SC FOR BSNL

¶22

Counsel for the Respondent No.1: SRI A.RAGHU KUMAR

¶23

Counsel for the Respondent No.2: -

¶24

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶25

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI

¶26

AND

¶27

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO

¶28

Writ Petition No.4913 of 2023

¶29

ORDER : lttcr the I lon'bte sn Justrce Au ttlnd Ktanu str.rutti)

¶30

This Writ Petition is tiled by the petitioners under Article-226 of the Constitution oi India seeking a 'Wnt of Certiorari'by calling for records relating to the order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad (for short,'the Tribunal') in O.A.No.01157 of 2016, dated 14.03.2022 and to quash the same

¶31

Heard Mrs. P. Sharada, learned Standing Counsel for petitioners and Mr. A. Raghu Kumar, learned counsel for the 1"t respondent.

¶32

Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the petitioners contended that the l't respondent was working as regular Mazdoor with the petitioners While, the l"t respondent was discharging her duties, it was found that there were short remittances of amount

¶33

of Rs.22.4O lakhs in the bank account. The

¶34

.(,I L\ R l{N, / \ ) I^,l.t -ol.l

¶35

¶36

disciplinary autl-rority has construe d thc sanrc as rnisconduct and initiated disciplinary procecrlings b-y issuing charge memo on 22.05.2013. When ll-rc 1't respondent has denied the charges, the disciplinary authority has ordered for regular dt:partr r-rcntal cnquiry. The regular enquiry was conducted and thc Enquiry Officer submitted a report on 13.07.2015 holding that the charge as proved, and bascd upon lhc Dnquiry Ofhcer's report and for the proven misconduct in the enquiry, the disciplinary authority h:rs itlposccl a punishrnent of dismissal from scrvicc r.ide proceedings, dated 02.07.2016. Aggrieved b1' the said orders of dismissa-I, the l"t respondcnt had prcferred the appeal to the appellate authority and the appellate authority was a,lso pleased to reject the appezrl vide orders, dated 26.09.2016. Aggrieved by thc orclcrs of the disciplinary authority and the appellate authority, the l't respondent has approached the Tribunal by filing the present O.A.No.01157 ol 2016 and the Tribunal vide orders, dated 14.03.2022 was plezrsed to

¶37

¶38

AKS, ] & RRN,] \vt).1,r13 2Ol.l

¶39

¶40

allow the O.A by setting aside the orders of dismissal imposed on the l"t respondent by the disciplinary authority and the appellate authority on the gronnd of proportionality and remanded the matter to the petitioners to impose any othcr lesser punishment other than the dismissal or removal, u,ithout appreciating any of the contentions raised by the petitioners. Learned counsel for the petitioners further contended that when once the charge is held to be proved in the enquiry, the Tribunal was not justiiied in interfering with the orders of dismissal. Thcrefore, appropriate orders be passed in the writ petition by setting aside the orders passed by the Tribunal in O.A.No.O1157 of 2016, dated L4.03.2O22 and allow the writ petition.

¶41

On the other hand, learned counsel for 1"r respondent had contended that the persons, who were at the helm of affairs were responsible for misappropriation, and they were let off with the minor penalty and when it comes to the l"t respondent, who

¶42

N K5,J & R I]N, J n J)^.19 L 3 l0:.1

¶43

¶44

lSa regular Mazdoor, has bccn imposed a severe punishment of dismissal. This aspect was considcrcc.l by thc Tr.ibunal and the Tribunal has found that the punishment ol dismissal on a regula-r Mazdoor is shockingly <lisproportionate. Therefore, the Tribur.ral {IAS justifie d 1n interfering with the punishment ol dismissal on the ground of Wednesbury Principle.

¶45

Learncrl counscl for the l^st responden t furthcr contendcd that no police complaint was given about the shortage of fl-nds, which would mean that the persons who were at the helm of affairs, /erc responsible for alleged irregularities and werc let off rvith a minor penalty and when it comcs to i.t respondent who was working as General Mazdoor, irc was imposed a punishment of dismissal. Therefore, thc Tribunal was justified tn interfering with thc punishment of dismissal and rightly remancled the matter back to the petitioners to impose any other iesser punishment other than the d isrr-rissal or

¶46

5 /(S,J & RRN, ] \r i) l() I 3 202.1

¶47

removal. Therefore, there are no merits in tl,re writ petition and the same is liable to be dismissed

¶48

This Court having considered thc rival

¶49

submissions made by both the parties is of the view that the Tribunal was justihed in allowing thc O.A in favour of the l"r respondent on the ground of proportionality. The Tribunal has taken into account the fact that the persons who were at the l,relm of affairs, were let off with a minor penalty and the 1", respondent being a General Mazdoor was imposed a punishrnent of dismissal, which was found shockingly disproportionate to the charge levelled against the 1"r respondent. Hence, the Tribunal was justified in allowing the O.A in favour of the 1"r respondent by rightly remanding the matter to the petitioners to impose any other lesser punishment other thal dismissal or removal. This Court is not inclined to

¶50

¶51

interfere with the orders passed by the Tribunal.

¶52

AKS, J & RRN,,I \P.1913:023

¶53

¶54

With thesc obserwations, the Writ Pctition is

¶55

disrnisserl. No order as to costs

¶56

As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending

¶57

if any, sl-rall stand closed.

¶58

To,

¶59

SD/- G. SIREESHA ASSISTA!{T REGISTRAR ,TRUE COPY' Qg SECTION OFFICER

¶60

1 One CC to St,4T P.SARADA, SC FOR BSNL [OPUC] 2 One CC to SRI A.RAGHU KUIVAR, Advocate [OPUC] ? Two CD Copies

BSR

HIGH COURT

DATED: 1711012023

ORDER

WP.No.4913 of 2023

.( HE STA 16:
'Jc
o
7 7. NOV 2i23
*
t
D€ Ph1

¶69

DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION,

¶70

WITHOUT COSTS

¶71

Union of India v. S.Bhanu Priya

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Union of India v. S.Bhanu Priya

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri Ravi Chander Pelluri, Vs Sri Mamidi Sandeep Kumar

G.S.Reddy Vs The Telangana State Road Transport Corporation and 2 others

The Telangana State Road Transport Corporation Vs G.S.Reddy

The Union of India Vs Ch. S.R.K. Sarma.

B. Ratna Vs Sangumuri Balakrishna

Smt.M.Suseela, Vs The State of Telangana