Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
RAVI NATH TILHARI, CHALLA GUNARANJAN
Superintendent Of Police, Krishna District – Appellant
Versus
A. Sree Hari, Krishna District – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Ravi Nath Tilhari, J.
Heard Sri G. Raju, learned Government Pleader for Services-I, for the petitioners and Sri Satya Sreenivasa Rao, learned counsel for the respondent.
2. This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India was filed by the petitioners, the Superintendent of Police, Krishna District, Machilipatnam and others challenging the Order dated 21.06.2005 passed by the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad (in short ‘the Tribunal’) in O.A.No.2628 of 2002. The O.A. was filed by Sri A. Srihari, Ex.PC-807, the respondent herein. The Tribunal disposed of the O.A, setting aside the Orders impugned in O.A. and remanding the matter to the petitioner authorities to take a fresh view in the matter in imposition of punishment.
I. Facts:
3. The respondent was initially appointed as police constable on 15.06.1976. After he had put in service of 24 years, an enquiry was initiated against him for his absence from duty from 22.06.1998 unauthorizedly, as misconduct under Rule 3 of the Andhra Pradesh Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1964 (in short ‘the Conduct Rules’).
4. Article-I of charge reads as under:
Unauthorized absence from duty must be proven willful to constitute misconduct; penalties must be proportionate to the offense and consider the employee's service record.
The Court emphasized that while past conduct can influence punishment, it cannot serve as the sole basis for dismissal without it being specifically charged and substantiated.
The court upheld the disciplinary authority's decision to impose a 100% pension cut for unauthorized absence, emphasizing the importance of discipline in public service.
The doctrine of proportionality must be applied in determining the proportionality of punishment in disciplinary proceedings, and the punishment must be commensurate with the fault committed.
Termination without proper procedure and documentation is disproportionate, violating legal norms on employee's rights.
The quantum of penalty should not be interfered with unless shockingly disproportionate to the misconduct. The gravity of the misconduct, the frequency of such conduct, and the member's service histo....
The court emphasized the importance of considering compelling circumstances, avoiding double jeopardy, and imposing proportionate punishment in service dismissal cases.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
