Disposed

Union of India and Another v. S.Srinivasa Rao

Telangana HC5 Feb 2025WP/15027/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition by SVP National Police Academy against a CAT order setting aside the dismissal of an ex-constable for excess payment on petroleum supplies and directing reinstatement with consequential benefits. The High Court, noting the employee was already reinstated, modified the relief to 50% of consequential benefits.

What did the court decide?

Petitioners directed to pay 50% of consequential benefits to the respondent; no costs; miscellaneous applications closed.

Union of India and Another Vs S.Srinivasa Rao — Service and Employment | Telangana HC (2025)

¶1

[^344s ]

¶2

¶3

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

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE FIFTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI AND THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO: 15027 OF 2020

¶8

Between:

¶9

'1 . Union of lndig, R9p, by its Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs thrciugh Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel National Police Academy, Hyderabad. Represerit,ed by its Director and Appellate Autoirty (Estt).

¶10

The Deputy Direclor (Admin) and Disciplinary Authority, Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel National Police Academy, Hyderabad.

¶11

..PETITIONER

¶12

AND

¶13

S.Srinivasa Rao, /o S.Ganga Raju, Aged about 46 years, Occ. Ex. Constable r/o Sardar Vallabhai Patel, National Police-Academy, Site A, Type l, C5i3 Sivarampally, Rajendra Nagar(M), Ranga Reddy District 5000[]5

¶14

...RESPONDENT

¶15

Petition under Article 226 ol the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affldavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue an order or direction more particularly in the nature of Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records pertaining to order daled 171312020 in OA No.0211064412017 ot the Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench, Hyderabad and quash the same as arbitrary, contrary to taw and Rules.

¶16

lA NO: 1 OF 2020

¶17

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the High Court may be pleased to

¶18

suspend the operation of the order dt. 171312020 in OA No.0211064412017^passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad^{Bench, Hyderabadpending} disposal of Wdt^petition. counserrorthePetitioners'Li[!]"i,tiF]i,kx.^. counserrortheRespono""t"'?#.la,JlJi,=l-%+-tHRtsXi=^td^ The Court made the following: ORDER

¶19

¶20

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI AND THE HON'BLE SMT.IUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA

¶21

WRIT PETITION No.15027 OF 2020

¶22

OT{DER: (Per Hon'ble Sri Justice Abl.rinand Kumar Shavili)

¶23

This Writ Petition is filed aggrieved by the order, dated 17.03.2020, passed in O.A.No.644 of 2A77 by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench, Hyclerabacl (for short, 'the Tribunal')

¶24

Heard Sri G.R.S. Akhileswar, learned counsel representing the letrrrred Deputy Solicitor General of Inclia, appearing for the petitioners and Sri G. Vidyasagar, learned Senior Counsel representing Sri Sai Prasen Gundavaram, learneci counsel for the respondent.

¶25

It is the case of the petitioners that the respondent was working as Constable in Border Security Force since 1992. He came on deputation to the petitioner-Academy on 23.01.2009. He was attached to Motor Transport Section of the petitionerAcademy as a Constable (Driver). Subsequently, the services of

¶26

,,,...

¶27

AKS,J & ETD,J W.P.No.l5027 of 2020

¶28

the respondent were absorbed in the petitioner-Academy. White so, the disciplinary authority has initiated disciplinary proceedings trgainst the respondent, alleging that the respondent has indulged in excess payment for supply of petroleum products to the vehicles of the petitioner-Academy during the years 2011 to 2074. A Charge Memo to that effect was issued on 17 .12.201,4 and the respondent has submitted his explanation. Not satisfied with the explanation submitted by the respondent, the disciplinary authority has initiated departmental proceedings. On 16.02.2015, the disciplinary authority has cancelled the Charge Memo. However, the disciplinary authority has placed the respondent under suspcnsion on 20.03.2015. Thereafter, a fresh Charge Memo was issued on 27.03.2075. The respondent submitted his explanation. 1-he disciplinary authority was not satisfied with the said explanation and ordered for a regular departmental enquiry. A regular Enquirl, Officer was appointed and the Enquiry Officer has submitterl reprort on 29.12.2016 holding the charges levelled against the respondent as proved. The Enquiry Officer,s report was furnished to the respondent and the respondent has

¶29

AKS,J & F]TD,J W.P.No. 15O27 of 2020

¶30

submitted his objections to the Enquiry Officer's report. The disciplinary authority, for the proven misconduct in the enquiry, has imposed punishment of dismissal from service on the respondent ztide order, dated 07.04.2017.

¶31

Aggrieved by the order, dated 07.04.2077, the respondent preferred an appeal to the appellate authority and the appellate authority was pleased to reject the appeal on 21.06.2017. Aggrieved by the orders of the disciplinary authority ancl the appellate authority, the respondent has approached the Tribunal by filing the subject O.A.No.644 of 2017. The Tribunal, z,ir1e impugned order, dated 17.03.2020, was pleased to set aside the order of dismissal and directed the petitioners to reinstate the respondent into service with all consequential benefits, without appreciating any of the contentions raised by the petitioners.

¶32

Learned counsel for the petitioners had contended that the Tribunal could not have set aside the order of dismissal as though sitting as an appellate authority. The Tribunal has reappreciated the evidence and came to a conclusion that the charges levelled

¶33

¶34

4 AI{S,J & ETD,J w.P.No.l5O27 of 2O2O

¶35

against the respondent were not proved in the enquiry, which is contrary to the lar,v laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court in Union of India v. Parma Nandal, wherein the Honourable Supreme^(lourt has held that the Tribunals and High Courts cannot sit as an appellate authority and set asicie the orders of dismissal. Therefore, appropriate orders be passed in the Writ Petition by setting asicle tl're impugned order, clated 17.03.2020, and allow the Writ Petition.

¶36

On tht: other l-rancl, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent had contendecl that the Tribunal came to a conclusion that the charges itself were incorrectly framed. The disciplinary authority was u nder the impression that the respondent was a Motor Transport Clerk, whereas the respondent was a Constable (Driver). He never discharged the duties of Motor Transport Clerk. Learnecl Scnior Counsel had further contended that this Court at the time of admission of the Writ Petition has only suspended the grant of consequential benefits and has not stayed reinstatement of the responclent into service. Aggrieved by the t 1t9891 zscc tzz

¶37

5 AKS,J & ETD,J W.P.No.l5027 of 2020

¶38

same, the petitioners carried the matter to the Honourable Supreme Court by filing S.L.P.(C).No.15569 of 202L and the Honourable Supreme Court was pleased to dismiss the said S.L.P.(C). on 29."10.2021, and in pursuance of the interim order, dated 02.02.2021, passed by this Court, which was confirmed by the Honourable Supreme Court, the petitioners have reinstated the respondent into service on13."12.2027. Now, the only issue which is required to be adjudicated in the present case is whether the respondent is entitlecl to full consequential benefits or not. Therefore, appropriate orders be passed in the Writ Petition to that effect.

¶39

This Court, having considered the rival submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties, is of the considerecl view that the petitioners have already reinstated the respondent into service in pursuance of the interim order passed by this Court on 02.02.2027. The only issue to be adjudicated in this Writ Petition is with regard to grant of full consequential benefits to the respondent. The TribunaI could not have granted full

¶40

6 AKS,J & ETD,J W.P.No. 15027 of 2O2O

¶41

consequential benefits to the respondent. Therefore, this Court is of the view that ends of justice would be met if 50% of the consequential benefits are awarded to the respondent and accordinglv, 507. of the consequential benefits are awarded to the respondent.^'ilris order is being passed in order to give quietus to this litigation.

¶42

With thc above observations/directions, the Writ Petition is disposed of. fhere shall be no orcier as to costs.

¶43

Miscellaneous Applications, if any, pencling in this Writ

¶44

Petition shall stand closecl.

¶45

To,

¶46

SD/..L. VIJAYA LAXMI ISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPYII

¶47

SECTION OFFICER

¶48

¶49

'1 . one cc to sRl cADr PRAVEEN KUMAR, (Deputy Soricitor Generar of rndia), High Court for the State of Tetangana at Hideiab6d fOpUCi^{- - -}

¶50

One CC to SRI SAt PRASEN GUNDAVARAM, Advocate. tOpUCl

¶51

Two CD Copies.

BSK

HIGH COURT

DATED:0510212025

ORDER

WP.No.15027 of²⁰²⁰

1 $E STA 14:
(
(
Jt '!
t) 1 I tlAl1 2025
I
,g .a
t
t
Sr,ATC-l r:C

¶60

DISPOSING OF^{THE WRIT PETITION} WITHOUT COSTS

¶61

d
C

Union of India and Another v. S.Srinivasa Rao

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Union of India and Another v. S.Srinivasa Rao

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

P. Nagarjuna Rao, Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh

Gopi Chandra Vs Poonam Chandra

Y.G. Nagaiah Vs The Land Acquisition Officer and Spl Deputy Collector

Inspector General of Police, Vs Sri Gopiraju Karunakar

The Commandant, Vs U.Mallikarjuna Rao

The Special Deputy Collector, La Vs K. Rajitha