WA/1225/2011 of The Superintending Engineer (Electricity), Vs Y. Dayanandam on 29 December 2011

Conclusion

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMEDAND

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO

Writ Appeal No.1225 OF 2011

29-12-2011

Between:

The Superintendent Engineer (Electricity), Operation Circle, APNPDCL,Warangal.

……….Petitioner

And

Y.Dayanandam and another.

………Respondents

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMEDAND

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO

Writ Appeal No.1225 OF 2011

JUDGMENT: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice Ghulam Mohammed)

This writ appeal is filed against the order dated 10-02-2011 passed inW.P.No.1761 of 2003.

2. Brief facts which are necessary for disposal of this writ appeal are that the 1strespondent, who is the writ petitioner, was appointed as a-Revenue Cashier/Bill Collector in the year 1981 in the appellantCorporationand his services were regularized in the year 1983-84.While so, on certainallegations with regard to the misappropriation of funds collected from the-consumers and causing loss to the revenues of the appellantCorporation,he was suspended from service by order dated 21-09-1992, leveling two-charges involving an amount of Rs.1084/ and after conducting a detailedenquiry, he was removed from service by order dated 17-02-1995.Aggrieved b thereby, the 1strespondent approached this Courtand filed the W.P.No.27831 of 1995.This Court disposed of the said writpetition directing the 1strespondent to approach the Tribunal for proper adjudication of the matter.Then he approached the Indistrial Tribunal-cum--Labour Court, Warangal, and filed a claim petition under Section 2A (2) ofthe Industrial Disputes Act in I.D.No.28 of 2000 contending that the enquiryofficer failed to follow the principles of natural justice and also failed toappreciate the evidence in correct perspective.The Labour Court afterconsidering the evidence on record, confirmed the order of removal dated17-02-1995.Aggrieved thereby the 1strespondent filed the present writpetition.The learned Single Judge after considering the oral anddocumentary evidence on record, disposed of the writ petition setting asidethe removal order dated 17-02-1995 and directing the appellants to reinstatethe 1strespondent into service with continuity of service, but without anyback wages and other attendant benefits.Challenging the order, theappellant filed the present writ appeal.

3. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant-Corporation and the1strespondent-workman and perused the record.

4. The learned counsel for the appellant-management contendedthat charges are serious and though it is a temporary misappropriation, theemployee is not entitled to the reinstatement.

5. On the other hand, Sri S.Ravindranath, learned counsel for the1strespondent-workman contended that he has made good the amount ofRs.1,084/- due to an erroneous calculation mistake.Further, in view of thest-unblemished service of 15 years rendered by the 1respondentworkmen,the learned single Judge has exercised discretion rightly and properly bysetting aside the removal order, hence, the same needs no interference.

6. By the impugned order passed in the writ petition, the learnedSingle Judge observed as follows:

“The sum and substance of the charges levelled against the 1strespondent are that he altered the amounts in duplicate P.Rs., in respect ofconsumers of different villages, prior to remittance of the amount to the---respondentCorporation, thereby caused loss of Rs.1,084/ to the appellantCorporation.Even if the charges are proved, as held by the disciplinaryauthority and the Labour Court, the same may not warrant removal fromservice, unless and until some past instances of the workman behaving in

the same manner are found.No such past instances have been referred toin the impugned award.There is no dispute that the workman had rendered15 years of unblemished service and that, for the first time, he has committedthe alleged misconduct.Apart from this, before the enquiry was initiated, the-workman has made good the amount of Rs.1,084/ which is alleged to havebeen misappropriated by him. In these circumstances, the Labour Courtought not to have confirmed the order of removal.Therefore, it would be justand proper to modify the impugned award as under:

“The order of removal from service dated 17-02-1995 passedby the disciplinary authority against the petitioner-workman is set asideand the 1strespondent-management is directed to reinstate the-petitionerworkman into service with continuity of service, but withoutany backwages and other attendant benefits.”

7. In the circumstances of the case, we are of the opinion that thelearned Single Judge has rightly modified the punishment by directing theappellant-management to reinstate the 1strespondent-workman into service-with continuity of service, but denied granting backwages and otherattendant benefits.Therefore, his services are liable to be counted for theperiod of removal from service.Therefore, the order as modified by thelearned Single Judge is an appropriate and well considered in our view andhence, the same is not required to be interfered with under Clause 15 ofLetter Patent.

8. In the result, the Writ Appeal is dismissed.There shall be noorder as to costs.

_____________________________

JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED

Dated:29-12-2011

____________________________________

JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO

kvr