WA/2030/2004 of The District Collector AND Chairman, Vs M.Koteswara Rao, on 30 December 2004

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD

THURSDAY, THE THIRTIETH DAY OF DECEMBERTWO THOUSAND AND FOUR

PRESENT

THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI

and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.ANANDA REDDY

WRIT APPEAL NO : 2030 of 2004

(Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the Order dated10/02/2004 in WP NO : 10126 OF 1993 on the file of the High Court.)

Between:

The District Collector & Chairman, The Krishna District Scheduled CasteService Cooperative Society Ltd., at Machilipatnam, Krishna District.

..... APPELLANT

AND

M.Koteswara Rao, s/o Kotaiah, The Krishna District Scheduled Caste Services Co.op. Society at Machilipatnam, Krishna District.

.....RESPONDENT

Counsel for the Appellant:MR.M.V.S.SURESH KUMAR

Counsel for the Respondent No.: MR.K.G.KRISHNA MURTHY

The Court made the following :

ORDER: (Per the Honourable Sri Justice S.Ananda Reddy)

This appeal is filed by the respondent-appellant aggrieved by the order of the learnedsingle Judge by setting aside the order of punishment imposed on the writ petitioner-respondent herein and ordering reinstatement with all consequential benefits.

The appellant is the Society. The respondent was employed as driver in the year1992 and he was charge sheeted for certain misconduct and a departmental enquiry wasconducted. It was found that the respondent was guilty of the charges. However, whilepassing the order, though the disciplinary authority felt that it is a case for dismissal orremoval of the employee, but by taking a lenient view considering the young age of therespondent, the respondent-appellant has reduced the cadre of the respondent to a lowerone i.e., contingent service as night watchman on consolidated pay. The said order wasassailed in the writ petition. The learned single Judge found that as the respondent was aregular employee as driver in the appellant-Society, the disciplinary authority has no suchpower to reduce the status of the respondent to that of a contingent employee andaccordingly, set aside the order.

The learned counsel for the appellant contended that the misconduct is so serious,but however, a lenient view has been taken and further, after passing of the impugnedorder, the respondent worked as a night watchman receiving the salary from the appellant-society. It is further contended that if the appellant is asked to pay all consequential benefitsincluding the wages in the cadre of driver without rendering any services to the Society, itwould cause serious hardship to the Society.

The said contention is opposed by the learned counsel for the respondent. However,it is contended by the learned counsel that the respondent is not at fault for working as a night watchman as he was forced to discharge the duties of a night watchman.

Heard both the counsel and considered the material available on record.

In view of the peculiar facts of the present case, the impugned order may not besustained legally in view of the infirmity. However, at the same time, the respondent is notentitled for back wages on the basis of the scale of pay of a driver, but for all practicalpurposes, the services of the respondent as a driver could be counted. Therefore, theappellant-Society is directed to reinstate the respondent as a driver in the time scalepayable to that of a driver of the Society as on the date of reinstatement. It is made clearthat the respondent is entitled for counting his past service for terminal benefits as a driver.

With the above modification, the writ appeal is disposed of.

The appellant-Society is directed to implement the order of this Court within a periodof four (4) Weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

30[th] December, 2004

_________________

Justice T.Meenakumari

Gurc.

__________________

justice S.Ananda Reddy

To