M. Srikanth, Vs Union of India

¶1

[^321e 1

¶2

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

¶3

TUESDAY, THE THIRD DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE^{T.MADHAVIDEVI}

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO: 15621 OF 2021

¶7

Between:

¶8

M. Srikanth, S/o. Bala Shavari,^{Aged about 37 years, Occ. constable} Removed from service, Rl/o. H.No.^{7-1t25121A,Narayapuram Village, Thallada} Mandalam, Khammam District^-507167.

¶9

...PETITIONER

¶10

AND

¶11

Union of lndia, rep. by The General^{Manager, SouthCentral Railway,Rail} Nilayam, Secunderabad

¶12

2 lnsoector General and Principal Chief^{SecurityCommissioner, Railway} Protection Force, South Central Railway,^{Rail Nilayam,Secunderabad'}

¶13

3 Chief Security Commissioner, Railway^{Protection Force, South Central} Railway, Rail Nilayam, Secunderabad.

¶14

4 The Senior Divisional Securitv Commissioner,^{RailwayProtection Force,} South Central Railway, Secunderabad^{Division, Secunderabad.}

¶15

...RESPONDENTS

¶16

Petilion under Article 226 of the^{Constitutionof lndia prayingthat in the} circumstances stated in the affidavit^{filed therewith, the High Court may be} pleased to issue a writ, order or direction more^{particu.farlyone in the nature of} writ of mandamus, calling for the^{records pertaining to the Divisionalorder no.} s8l2o19 dated 13-12-2019 of disciplinary^{authority along with orderno, z3l2o20} dated 14-O2-2020 of appellant authority^{and Order no.6312020daled 27-07-2O20} of Revision-al authority and set^{aside order of punishment of removalfrom} service and declaring the same as as^{arbitrary'illegal and unjust and} consequenfly direct the respondents to^{re-instatethe Petitionerby treating the} entire period from the date of^{removal to the dateof reinstatement as serviceand} pay him all arrears of salary and other benefits in the^{interestof justice.}

¶17

Counsel for thr: Petitioner: SRI K. V. RAJASREE

¶18

Counsel for the Respondents: SRI G. VENKATESWARULU

¶19

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶20

-lY_

¶21

INTHEHIGHcoURTFoRTHESTATEoFTELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶22

THE HON'BLE^{SMT. JUSTICET. MADHAVI DEVI} No.LS62^{1 0F 202L} 1[IRIT DATE: 03.02^.2o.26

Between:

M. Srikanth

Petitioner

AND

Union of India,

n"p."""rted^{by the General Manager& 3 others}

¶29

.Respondents

¶30

ORDER:

¶31

In this writ^{petition, the petitioneris challenging the action} oftherespondentsinremovinghimfromserviceandalsoin rejectingtheappealandrevisionfiledbythepetitioneragainstthe order of^removal..

¶32

Heard learned^{counser for the petitioner and Sri G} Venkateswarulu,^{the learned Standing counselappearing for} respondent^{Nos. t to 4'}

¶33

3.Learnedcounselforthepetitionersubmittedthatthe Constable^{in the resPondent} petitioner was appointed asa organization^{and after rendering of about 13 V2 years of service'a}

¶34

r

¶35

2

¶36

charge merno was issued to the petitioner alleging unauthorized absence of a period of 15 months and after conducting an enquiry and on the basis of the enquiry report, the petitioner was removed from service uide order, dated 13.L2.2O19. Aggrieved by the order of removal, the petitioner had preferred an appeal and thereafter, a revision. However, no relief was granted to the petitioner. Hence, the present Writ Petition

¶37

4, Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that the pr:titioner was suffering from illness and therefore, he could not attend the duty and remained absent for nearly 15 years. It is submitted that though the petitioner has submitted an explanatior. before the authorities, the same was not considered in proper pt:rspective that the petitioner's case requirr:s reconsideration and he was removed from service. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the.petitioner relied upon the judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court in Shrz Bhagutant Lal Arya a. Commissioner of Police, Delhi and otherst contending that the punishment imposed is highly excessive and disproportionate to the alleged misconduct. It is therefore prayed that the order of removal be set aside and the case of the

¶38

'AIR 2oO4 Suprene Court 2131

¶39

3

¶40

petitioner be considered^{for reinstatementinto serviceby treating} the period of absence as^{'not spent on duty'.}

¶41

On the other^{hand, learned Standing Counsel for the} respondents opposed^{the same and relied upon the averments} mad.e in the counter^{affidavit. It is submitted that the petitioner} did not participate^{in the enquiry proceedings in spite of several} opportunities^given to^{him and the explanationgiven by the} petitioner for the unauthorized^{absence was not found to be} correct. It is further^{submittedthat since the respondent} Organization is a disciplined^{force, unauthorized absence cannot} be consid.ered as a^{minor misconduct.Therefore, accordingto} him, the respondents^{are justified in removing the petitioner from} service. Learned^{Standing Counsel had further submitted that} during 13 years of^{service, the petitioner was chargedsix times,} which shows his lack^{of devotionto duty and that the same was} taken into consideration^{by the revisional authority while} upholding the order^{of removal.}

¶42

Having regard to^{the rival submissionsmade by both the} parties and material^{on record, this Court observes that the fact} that the petitioner^{was punishedsix times during his 13 years of} service cannot be a^{ground. for removing the petitioner from} service,^{as those instancesdid not form part of the charges leveled} , 1 ,r'

¶43

4

¶44

against the: petitioner leading to the current order of punishment. The only c:harge in the Charge Memo against the petitioner, is unauthorized absence for a period of 15 months. Though the petitioner pleaded illness as a reason, the learned Standing Counsel has pointed out that the said contention is not supported by any dor:uments and that the petitioner had taken contrary stands befcrre the authorities. However, this Court finds that the Honourable Supreme Court in Shri Bhagutan Lal Arya's case (referred supra) has observed as follows:

¶45

'lhus, the present one is a case wherein we are satisfied that the punishment of removal from service imp,osed on the appellant is not only highly excessive and disproportionate but is also one which was not perrnissible to be imposed as per the Service Rules. Ordinarily we would have set aside the punishment and sent the matter back to the disciplinary authority for passing the order of punishment afresh in accordance with law and consistently with the principles laid down in the judgment. However, that would further lengthen the life of litigation. In view of the time already lost, we deem it proper to set aside the punishment of removal from service and instead dire,:t the appellant to be reinstated in service subject to the condition that the period during which the appr:llant remained absent from du$ and the period calc:lated up to the date on which the appellant reports back to duty pursuant to this judgment shall not be counted as a period spend on duff. The appr:llant shall not be entitled to any service benefits for this period. Looking at the nature of partial relief allovred hereby to the appellant, it is now not necessary to pass any order of punishment in the departmental proceedings in lieu of the punishment of remc'val from service which has been set aside. The appellant must report on duty within a period of six weeks from today to take benefit of this judgment.

¶46

t

¶47

5

¶48

7 - The above^{judgment would be applicableto the case on hand} as well. [n view of the^{above,this Court deemsit fit to direct the} respondents to reconsider^{the case of the petitionerfor} reinstatement into^{service, if he is found to be medically fit with} any major^{punishment, other than removal from service.The} treatment to be^{given for the period of absence shall also be} consid,ered by the^{authorities. Accordingly, thematter is} remanded to the file^{of disciplinaryauthority with a direction to} reconsider the case^{of the petitioner and pass appropriateorders} in accordance with^{law, keepingin mind the aboveobservations of} this court and the^{judgment of the Honourablesupreme court} referred supra. The^{decision shall be taken within a period of} three (3) months^{from the date of receipt of a copy of this order'}