Union Of India v. Adem Prabhakar

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA (Special Original Jurisdiction) i THURSDAY, THE THIRTY FIRST DAY OF DECEIVBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A. RAJASHEKER REDDY AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN WRIT PETITION NO: 23334 OF 2020 Between:

Union of lndia, rep. by the Secreta of lndia Shram Shakti Bhavan Rafi ry, Ministry of Labour and Employment Govt.

Marg, New Delhi - 110 001.

...PETITIONER AND Adem Prabhakar, S/o. Late Shri A Anjaneya Reddy Aged about 67 years, Retd.Dy.Chief Labour Commissioner (Central), Rl/o. Subha Shree House No.552 (old No.6-3-252 I1 12) Erram lt4anzil, Hyderabad -500082 ...RESPONDENT Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue an order or direction more panicularly in the nature of Writ of Certiorari calling for the records pedaining to Order dated: 2511 112019 in OA No.109B of 2013 on the file of the Hon'ble Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench, Hyderabad and quash the same as arbitrary, unjust and contrary to law. :

!

lA NO: 1 OF 2020 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in lhe affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend operation of the orders dated: 2511112019 in OA No.'1098 of 2013 passed by the Hon'ble Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench, Hyderabad, pending disposal of WP.

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO, ASSISTANT SOLICITOR GENERAL Counsel for the Respondent :------ The Gourt made the following: ORDER

i THE HON'BLE SRIJUSTICE A'RAJASHEKER REDDY AND THE HONOURABLE SRIJUSTICE K' LAKSHMAN Writ Petiti on No.23334 of 2020 ri Jus ce A. Ra ash ker Redd R r This writ petition is filed against the order dated 25 11'2019 passed in O.A.No.20/1098/2013 by the Central Administrative Tribunal' Hyderabad Bench, Hyderabad, wherein and whereby the Tribunal has set aside the punishment imposed on the respondent and directed the petitioner to review and modify the punishment to a lesser penalty' which is commensurate to the rapse committed by the respondent and to be on par with others who were found to err in the issue under question' 2.

Sri Namavarapu Rajeshwar Reddy' Assistant Solicitor General of lndia, appearing for the petitioner' submits that as serious lapses were committed by the respondent being a superior officer' the Tribunal could not have interfered with the punishment imposed by the petitioner vide order dated 19.03.2012 and that imposrtion of resser punishment wiil amounttocondonethelapsescommittedbytherespondentwhenthe allegations are serious ln nature involving procedural irregularities' 3.

A reading of the order passed by the Tribunal goes to show that the Tribunal has rightly considered the issue by referring to the judgments of the Apex Court in J' Ahmed v' Union of lndiai; Man Singh v' State of Haryanaii; P. Siraiuddin v' State of Madrasiii' and State of Punjab v' Davinder Pal Singh Bhullariu' The Tribunal in paragraph Vll of the order held as follows;

"Therefore, to sum up, it is abundantly clear that the applicant was not involved in a case of procurement of medicines to enrich himself He followed the procedure as was followed by others' Respondents failed to lay down a firm policy in procuring medicines' They did so only after the limited tender process was completed by the applicant' who has candidly admitted as to what he has i

ARR,J&KL,J done. CBI did not report that the applicant was dishonest. After traversing through the case details, we found it to be more a case of negligence on the part of the applicant and lack of balance in imposing penalties by the respondent for more or less similar lapses by employees involved in the issue. A purchase committee comprising doctors, who are aware as to the quality of medicines to be procured, was involved. Applicant cannot be solely made responsible for the alleged lapses. ln was collective wisdom which prevailed in taking the decision of procuring medicines. Action of the respondent rs thus not in congruence with many legal principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court cited supra, in regard to various aspects of the issue.

However, one should not ignore the aspect that the applicant being a senior officer, should have exercised caution in procurement by adhering to basic financial rules. Work load does not entail any liberty to lake wrong decisions. However, the applicant was found nol to be dishonest. He followed what others did and his fellow colleague was let off with a minor penalty".

4.

The fact that lesser punishment was imposed on similarly situated persons is not seriously disputed and the Tribunal also found that CBI has not reported that the respondent was dishonest and he cannot be solely responsible for the alleged lapses. The said findings of the Tribunal are not seriously challenged. The Tribunal has not let-off the respondent without any punishment, but only directed to impose lesser punishment keeping in view facts and circumstances.

5.

ln view of the above, we are of the view that the Tribunal has taken all pains to go into the details of the matter and gave specific findings, which could not be attacked very seriously. ln view of the said findings of fact, we are not inclined to re-appreciate the evidence and interfere with findings of fact rendered by the Tribunal, by exercising power of judicial review under Arlicle 226 of the Constitution of lndia. 6.

Keeping in view the totality of facts and circumstances, we are of the view that this is not a fit case to interfere and interdict the order passed by the Tribunal by exercising power under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia

ARR,J&KL,J 7.

Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. B.

Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this writ petition shall stand dismissed.

AtR 1979 SC 1022 (2008) 12 scc 331 1970(1) scc 595 izor+) scc (L&S) 208: (2011) 14 scc 770 SD/.K.ONESIM ASSISTANT REGIST //TRUE COPY// SECTION FFICER To,

1. One CC to Sri. Namavarapu Rajeshwar Rao' Assistant Solicitor General [OPUC]

2. Two C.D. CoPies Prk J-"

\

HIGH COURT DATED:3111212020 TA r4r 1{ )t 23 FEB 2021 ( 7:

ORDER

c_"1 WP.No.23334 o12020 * r!

Dismissing the WP.

without costs.

?-\ ), >o