The Union Of India v. M.A. Jabbar

\\ t 33181 HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYOERABAD (SPecial Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE FIFTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENry THREE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTIC'd I'IAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO WRIT PETITION NO:1 96140F 2021 Between:

l.TheUnionoflndia,representedbyDirectorGeneral'Posts'Departmentof ' p'.ilti'ol[ Bir;';;,'l,'s;ht;d Mars' New Delhi-100 001

2. The Director of Postal Services' Oio The Postmaster General' Head Quarters - Region, HYderabad 500 001'

3. The Senior Superintendent of Post Offices', Secunderabad Postal Division' " o i"p"i-rL-,jt Jt Foti"-i"ol'i,'ci no n i n a s a r' H vd e ra bad 50 00 8 0. ...PETITIONERS AND lf"*g:'J,3:,?3,ii[X.]''.t'r1'Jl-rfl',",t$!1li:!f '#fi "'ip"ilJl?ll":* i;:i;;,6ftH'P;;-d,-F;.h";fi ;"i;|il;; G'te siniinnasar' Hvderabad-500 ...RESPONDENTS PetitionunderArticle226oftheConstitutionoflndiaprayingthatinthe circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith' the High Court may be pleased to issue an order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Certioraricallingfortherecordspertainingtotheorderdaled24.0l-2020passed ino.A.No.Sg}tzol4onthefileoftheHon'bleCentralAdministrativeTribunal' Hyderabad Bench, Hyderabad and quash the same as illegal' arbitrary' contrary to law and unconstitutional lA NO: 1 oF 2021 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that rn the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition the High Court may be pleased to

suspend the operation of the order dated 24-01-2020 passed in O A' No 598 of 2014 passed by the Hon'ble Central Administrative Tribunal' Hyderabad Bench' Hyderabad pending disposal of Writ petition'

Counsel for the Petitioners: SRI GADI PRAVEEN KUMAR' DEPUTY SOLICITOR GENERAL OF INDIA Counsel for the Respondent: SRI M' VENKANNA The Court made the following: ORDER

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO WRIT PETITION No.19614 0F o2l 9B9,EB: (Per AKS,J) This Writ Petition is filed aggrieved by the order, dated 24.01.2020, pasded in O.A.No.201598/2014 bv the Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench. Hyderabad (for short, 'the Tribunal').

2.

Heard the learned Deputy Solicitor General of India appearing for the petitioners and Sri M. Venkanna, learned counsel ll rl l for the respondent.

lr L 3.

Learned Deputy Solicitor General of India appearing for the petitioners had contended that the respondent was working as a Postmanwiththepetitioners.HeremainedUnaUthorizedlyabsent to duties from O1'09.2008 to 30.11.2008, 01'03'2009 to 10.08.2009 and again from 15.09.2009 to 08'03'2013' The disciplinary authority, construing the same as misconduct, initiated disciplinary proceedings against the respondent by issuing a charge memo on 08.03.2013. The respondent has submitted explanation denying the charges Ievelled against him' Not satisfied with the explanation submitted by the respondent, the disciplinary authority has appointed an Enquiry Officer to conduct a

AKS.J & RRN,J w P.N.,.19614 of 2O2l detailed enquiry and the Enquiry Officer conducted a detailed enquiry and submitted report, dated 06.07.2013, holding that the charges levelled against the respondent were proved The respondent also admitted the charges before the Enquiry Officer. Based upon the proven misconduct in the enquiry, the disciplinary authority has imposed punishment of removal from service on the respondent vide proceedings, dated 21.10.2013. Aggrieved by the same, the respondent preferred an appeal before the appellate authority and the appellate authority was pleased to dismiss the appeal vide order, dated 24.03.2Ot4. Aggrieved by the same, the respondent approached the Tribunal by filing the subject O.A.No.2Ol598/2014 and the Tribunal, vde impugned order, dated 24.O1.2020, was pleased to allow the subject O.A.

in favour of the respondent by following the law laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court in Krushnakanth B Parmar and another v. Union of India L and directed the petitioners to modify the punishment of removal from service to any other lesser punishment other than removal or dismissal from service, on the ground that the punishment of removal is shockingly d isproportionate to the charges levelled against the respondent. 4.

Learned Deputy Solicitor General of India further contended that the respondent had remained unauthorizedly absent on L(10[) ] s(c I-S i

,r AKS,J & RRN,J w.l'. No l96l'+ of 2021 various spells and because of the absence of the respondent' the petitioners were put to severe inconvenience' As admittedly the respondent has remained absent himself From duties' without applying leave, it is a grave misconduct and the Tribunal ought not to have interfered with the punishment of removal and directed modify the punishment to some other lesser the petitioners to than removal or dismissal from service punishment other Therefore, appropriate orders be passed in the Writ Petition by setting aside the impugned order, dated 24'Ol'2O2O' and allow the Writ Petition.

5.

On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent had contended that the respondent had to remain absent owing to his ill-health. As admittedly the absence of the respondent was not willful, but owing to his ill-health, the Tribunal was justified in allowing the subject O.A. in favour of the respondent' by following the law laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court in Krushnakanth B Parmar's case (supra)' The Tribunal has also considered the case of the respondent on the ground of proportionality and the Tribunal felt that the punishment of removal is shockingly d isproportion ate to the charges levelled againsttherespondent.Theabsenceoftherespondentcannotbe treatedaswillful,asadmittedly,hewashaVinghealthissues.

AKS,J & RRN,J W I'] No.l96l4 of 2O21 Therefore, there are no merits in the Writ Petition and the same is liable to be dismissed.

6.

This Court, having considered the rival submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties, is of the view that the Tribunal was justified in allowing the subject O.A. in favour of the respondent by following the law laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court in Krushnakanth B Parmar's case (supra). The Tribunal rightly observed that the absence of the respondent is not willful, but owing to his ill-health and that the punishment of removal from service imposed on the respondent is shockingly disproportionate to the charges levelled against him. However, the Tribunal ought not to have awarded consequential benefits, as admittedly, the respondent had remained absent himself from duties. Therefore, such portion of the impugned order, dated 24.O1.

2O2O, where the Tribunal has extended the consequential benefits to the respondent is set aside and the petitioners shall consider the case of the respondent in terms of the order. dated 24.01.2O2O, passed by the Tribunal, however, without consequential benefits. It is made clear that the out of employment period should be counted for the purpose oF pension and pensionary benefits only, but not for arrears of salary.

AKS,J & RRN,J W.P.No.l96l4 of 2021 7, At this stage, we were inFormed by the learned counsel for the respondent that the respondent has already attained the age of superannuation. In view of the same, the only punishment which can be imposed on the respondent is compulsory retirement. Therefore, the respondents are directed to explore the possibility I I i of imposing the punishment of compulsory retitement on the respondent, in view of the fact that the respondent has already attained the age of superannuation.

8.

With the above observations/directions, the Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous Applications, if any, pending in this Writ Petition, shall stand closed.

SD/-K.SREERAMA MURTHY ASSISTAAIT REGISTRAR qa SECTION OFFICER //TRUE COPY'/ To, ,l-oneCCtoSriGadiPraveenKumar,DeputySolicitorGeneraloflndia IOPUCI 2 6ne-Ct to Sri M. Venkanna' Advocate [OPUC]

3. Two CD CoPies TJ BS s

I I HIGH COURT DATED:0511012023 SlATE 12 Nil'I :S1 o lt

ORDER

r) I i Di.s('

WP.No.19614 of 2021 DISPOSTNG OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS.

d.6