Back
2017 Supreme(AP) 870
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH
V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN, M. GANGA RAO, JJ.
The State of Andhra Pradesh rep. by its Principal Secretary - Petitioner
Versus
Sri SK. Ghouse Mohiddin Ex PC 1832, (since died as LRs) - Respondent
Writ Petition No.41814 of 2017
Decided on : 11-12-2017
Headnote:
Employment and Service matter – Dismissal of service – Order of A.P. Administrative Tribunal setting aside the penalty of dismissal from service – Challenged – Respondents 2 to 5 herein are the legal heirs of who was employed as police constable – He was imposed with penalty of dismissal from service by order on the only charge of unauthorised absence from duty for a period of 21 days leading to he being declared as a deserter. Challenging order of penalty the deceased Government Servant filed O.A. on file of the A.P. Administrative Tribunal – Tribunal found the penalty to be disproportionate, and allowed the Original Application directing reinstatement with all benefits except back wages – Order of Tribunal was passed. Within a month, employee died – For almost four years the Government did not challenge the order of the Tribunal – But when the children of the deceased employee started making a claim, Government has come up with the above writ petition challenging the order of the Tribunal – Held, if the disciplinary authority had decided the quantum of penalty without reference to the past service record of an employee, it is not open to the Government to support the conclusion post facto with the past record of service – Therefore, today Government cannot ask us to look into the past record of service to support a conclusion reached by the disciplinary authority without taking that past record of service into account – Therefore, the said contention does not impress us – After all in this case, the employee was dismissed from service on 22.09.2008 – He succeeded before Tribunal by the order – On the 30th day of his victory before the Tribunal, he died without reaping the fruits of successful litigation – Tribunal has refused to grant him back wages – Therefore, the family is not going to get any back wages for the period from the date of dismissal – Thereafter, employee survived only for one month – Therefore, we do not think that it is a fit case for interference, especially when the only charge is that the employee was unauthorised absence – Additionally there is no reason or rhyme for the Government to come up with the writ petition after four years of the order of the tribunal – Death of employee could not have been taken advantage of by State to delay the challenge to the order of the Tribunal – Petition is dismissed.(Paras 9, 10, and 11)
V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN, J.
1. The State of A.P. has come up with the above writ petition challenging an order of the A.P. Administrative Tribunal setting aside the penalty of dismissal from service.
2. Heard the learned Government Pleader for Services (A.P).
3. The respondents 2 to 5 herein are the legal heirs of one Mr. Ghouse Mohiddin, who was employed as police constable. He was imposed with penalty of dismissal from service by order dated 22.09.2008, on the only charge of unauthorised absence from duty for a period of 21 days leading to he being declared as a deserter. Challenging the order of penalty the deceased Government Servant filed O.A.No.214 of 2011 on the file of the A.P. Administrative Tribunal. The Tribunal found the penalty to be disproportionate, and allowed the Original Application directing reinstatement with all benefits except back wages. The order of the Tribunal was passed on 18.09.2013. Within a month, the employee died on 17.10.2013.
4. For almost four years the Government did not challenge the order of the Tribunal. But when the children of the deceased employee started making a claim, the Government has come up with the above writ petition challenging the order of the Tribunal.
5. The main contention of the learned Government Pleader for Services is that though the only charge framed against the deceased employee was unauthorised absence for 21 days, his past record of service showed that he was a habitual absentee having suffered several penalties during his tenure. In paragraph-6 of the affidavit in support of the writ petition, the Government have given a tabulation, which reads as follows:
Sl. No
Punishment Awarded
C.No. and D.O. No.
1
RTSP by two stages for two years with effect
C.No.64 to 67/PR/89 D.No.523/93 dated 05.05.1993
2
PPI for One year w.e. on future increments and pension
C.No.352/PR/98 D.O.No.1469/01 dated 23.11.2001
3
PPI for one year without effect on future increments and pension
C.No.112/PR/A10/2002 D.O.No.1408/2002 dated 06.07.2002
4
PPI for a period of 2 years without effect on future pay and pension the period of desertion from 28.06.1997 to 14.11.1997 is treated as LWP
C.No.388/PR/1997 D.O.No.1050/2002 dated 19.05.2002
5
PPI for one year without effect the absence period is treated as LW
PC.No.71/PR/A10/2003 D.O.No.864/2003 dated 01.07.2003
6.
PPI for one year without effect on future increments and pension the absence period from 27.03.2003 to 06.04.2003 is treated LWP
C.No.139/PR/A10/2003 D.O.No.992/03 dated 29.07.2003
7
PPI for two years without effect on future increments and pension
C.No.28/PR/A10/2003 D.O.No.1009/2003 dated 30.07.2003
8
Censure the absence period from 25.02.2004 to 13.03.2004 is treated as LWP
C.No.37/PR/A10/2005 D.O.No.253/2005 dated 04.03.2005
9.
PPI for one year without effect on future increments and pension
C.No.239/PR/A10/2005 D.O.No.708/2005 dated 28.05.2005
10.
PPI for one year with effect on future increments and pension the suspension period from 10.04.2004 FN to 20.05.2004 as not on duty and the absence period from 03.02.2004 to 07.02.2004 and from 09.02.2004 to 21.02.2004 and 25.02.2004 to 13.03.2004 are treated as LWP
C.No.16/A7/2005 D.O.No.30/2006 dated 10.01.2006
11
PPI for one year without effect on future increment and pension
C.No.1426/PR/A10/2005 D.O.No.305/2006 dated 02.03.2006
12
PPI for one year without effect on future increments and pension period of absence from 29.06.2005 to 13.07.2005 is treated as LWP
C.No.15/PR/A10/2006 D.O.No.1230/2006 dated 24.08.2006
13
PPI for one year without effect on future increments and pension the absence period from 07.02.2006 to 21.02.2006 is treated as LWP
C.No.61/PR/A10/06 D
