WP/8614/2002 of U.Uppalaiah , Vs The Divisional Manager on 28 December 2006

ORAL ORDER:

WRIT PETITION NO. 8614 OF 2002

The present writ petition is filed questioning the action of therespondents in not granting attendant benefits and backwages to thepetitioner as illegal and arbitrary.

The petitioner herein was appointed as Conductor in respondentcorporation on 21.11.1995. While so, on 7-11-2000 a check wasconducted by the checking official wherein certain cash and ticketirregularities were found. The petitioner was issued with a chargememo on 7-11-2000 to which he has submitted his explanation. Having not satisfied with the explanation offered by the petitioner, hewas suspended by orders dated 16.11.2000 and a charge sheet dated20.11.2000 was issued to him. The enquiry officer after conducting anenquiry submitted a report holding the petitioner guilty of the chargesalleged. Thereafter, petitioner was issued with a show cause notice ofremoval dated 4.1.2001. The petitioner has submitted his explanationto the show cause notice. Ultimately by proceedings dated 16.1.2001petitioner was removed from the service. Aggrieved by the said orderof dismissal, petitioner submitted an appeal dated 25.1.2001. TheAppellate Authority on consideration of the matter, modified thepunishment and appointed the petitioner afresh. Questioning the saidorder insofar as not granting attendant benefits and backwages, thepresent writ petition is filed.

Heard learned counsel for petitioner, learned Standing Counselfor respondent corporation.

Until and unless the writ petition shows any dis-proportionality in imposing the penalty or it shocks the conscious of the Court, thisCourt cannot exercise its discretion or interfere with the quantum ofpenalty. I n Karnataka Bank Ltd. V. A.L. Mohan Rao[2], the apexCourt held that it is not for the courts to interfere in cases of grossmisconduct of the nature with the decision of the disciplinary authorityso long as the inquiry has been fair and proper and misconductproved, and that in such matters, it is for the disciplinary authority todecide what is the fit punishment.

It is a case of non-issuance of ticket to two passengers. Thecharge leveled against the petitioner stood proved. Basing on thefindings of the enquiry officer, the preliminary authority imposed thepunishment of removal from service by order dated 16.1.2001. TheAppellate Authority held that the there were only 17 passengers in thebus including the two ticket-less passengers and the punishmentawarded by the Depot Manager is fit and proper, however keeping inview the satisfactory record of the petitioner and on humanitariangrounds a lenient view was taken and the punishment of removal fromservice was modified and petitioner was appointed as afreshconductor. Thus, it is clear that the appellate authority concurred withthe findings of the disciplinary authority, however thought it fit to take alenient view in the matter. The order of the appellate authority isreasonable for the proved misconduct and the same needs nointerference by this Court.

The writ petition fails and is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly,the writ petition is dismissed. No costs.

____________

N.V.RAMANA,J

Dated: 28.12.2006

TVK

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA

2 (2006) 1 SCC 63

WRIT PETITION NO : 8614 of2002

DATED: 28.12.2006