B. PRAKASH RAO, J.

( 1 ) THIS appeal, at the instance of the management, who filed the writ, is against the order, dated 25-9-2000, dismissing the said writ in W. P. No. 3213 of 1994, which was directed against the Award, dated 4-10-1993, passed in I. D. No. 63 of 1990 on the file of the industrial Tribunal-l, Hyderabad (for short the Tribunal ).

( 2 ) THE brief facts, which are necessary for disposal of this appeal, are that the second respondent was working as General Mazdoor category-l in the appellant-Corporation. He sought for allotment of a residential quarter, by an application dated 1 -7-1982 for allotting the quarter D-350, III Zone, since it fell vacant due to transfer of occupant, a Watchman, sri P. Rajaiah, however, according to him, on the express consent given by one of his officers, he got into and occupied the residential quarter No. D-350, III Zone and the house rent allowance has not been collected from him. However, the appellant has initiated action for eviction against the second respondent for occupying such a residential quarter, without any proper allotment. According to the appellant, despite the directions given to vacate the residential quarter, for which he has no right to occupy, the second respondent did not comply with the same and hence it would amount to misconduct , as contemplated underthe Certified standing Order No. 16 (1) and therefore his services are liable to be terminated by taking a disciplinary action.

( 3 ) AFTER holding a regular enquiry and due opportunity having provided, the appellant dismissed from services of the second respondent on 31 -1 -1985, viz. , by orderdated 25-1-1985. Thereupon, the second respondent sought the dispute to be referred to the Tribunal and the same was taken up by the first respondent as I. D. No. 63 of 1990.

( 4 ) AFTER considering the material, as let in by both sides, the first respondent held that the failure to vacate the departmental quarter by the second respondent cannot be termed as misconduct , as per the Standing Orders, and therefore the imposition of punishment of termination of services is not justified and accordingly passed the award, directing reinstatement of the second respondent into service with full back wages and all other attendant benefits with continuity of service. Hence, the management filed the writ petition.

( 5 ) THE main contention advanced by the appellant in the writ petition was to the effect that despite the directions given by its officials to vacate the departmental quarter, the second respondent failed to do so, and therefore such an act amounts to gross disobedience of the directions, which constitute a misconduct . However, the learned single Judge did not find favour with these contentions put forward on behalf of the appellant and held that it would not fall within mischief of misconduct and dismissed the writ petition. Hence, the appeal.

( 6 ) AFTER hearing the learned counsel on either side and on perusing the material, the only question that falls for consideration is whether on the facts and circumstances, as a consequence to failure on the part of the employee to vacate the departmental quarter, which has not been allotted, an act of disobedience or non-compliance of the directions given to vacate the same would constitute misconduct as per the Standing orders.

( 7 ) ADMITTEDLY, the second respondent is an employee and he has not been allotted any departmental quarter, though, however, an application for, such allotment was pending with the appellant. According to the employee, the officer concerned has given express consentfor occupation, therefore heoccupied the same and consequently the house rent allowance has not been demanded or collected. According to the management, there is no allotment, therefore, they have given directions to vacate the said quarter, which was not acceded to. As prescribed under the Standing Orders, disobedience of directions given is also a misconduct though such an

Click Here to Read the rest of this document