Back
2024 Supreme(AP) 1527
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
RAVI NATH TILHARI AND NYAPATHY VIJAY, JJ.
G. Dali Dora – Appellant
Versus
Divisional Operations Manager (G), East Coast Railway, Waltair, Visakhapatnam and others – Respondent
WP No.22511 of 2024
Decided on : 14-10-2024
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : S. Karunakar rep. Devakumar Salikiti
For the Respondent: Pasala Ponna Rao (Deputy Solicitor General of India)
The court upheld the disciplinary authority's actions, asserting that the inquiry followed due process, and the punishment of removal from service was proportionate to the misconduct established.
Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Article 226 - Service law - Disciplinary proceedings - Petitioner charged with unauthorized absence and subletting railway quarter - Inquiry Officer's findings affirming charges upheld - Past unauthorized absences considered in penalty - No interference warranted under judicial review principles - Punishment of removal from service deemed proportionate. (Paras 2, 6, 10, 12, 14)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner was charged for subletting a railway quarter and for unauthorized absence from duty over a period of time, which included issuing a charge-sheet based on a disciplinary inquiry.
Findings of Court:
The Court upheld the findings of both the Inquiry Officer and the disciplinary authority, emphasizing no violations of natural justice were present, and the penalty was proportionate to the misconduct.
Issues: The core issues included the legitimacy of findings of misconduct, adherence to procedural norms in disciplinary actions, and the appropriateness of the imposed penalty.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the disciplinary authority's conclusions were supported by evidence and the inquiry was conducted per natural justice, reaffirming that there was no ground for judicial interference.
Result: Writ petition dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. charge of unauthorized absence and subletting (Para 2) |
| 2. inquiry findings and disciplinary authority's decisions (Para 3 , 5 , 6 , 8 , 11) |
| 3. assessment of penalties and compliance with procedural laws (Para 4 , 7 , 12) |
| 4. judicial review principles in disciplinary matters (Para 9 , 10) |
| 5. final dismissal of the writ petition (Para 14 , 15 , 16) |
JUDGMENT :
RAVI NATH TILHARI, J.
1. Heard Sri S. Karunakar, learned Counsel representing Sri Devakumar Salikiti, learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader for respondents.
2. The petitioner while working as Track Point Man (TPM) - B at Simhachalam, he has applied for leave from 11.10.2014 to 13.10.2014. He did not report after expiry of the said period and remained absent from 14.10.2014 to 19.12.2014. The petitioner was served with a charge-sheet dated 15.10.2014 on the following two charges :
(I) That the applicant while working under SMR/SCMN has sub-letted the Railway Quarter No.56/A, which was allotted to him in June 2012 to the outsider by taking advance amount from him.
(II) That the applicant while working under SMR/SCMN was remained unauthorized absent from duty from 14.10.2014 to 19.12.2014. He did not submit any medical certificate from the competent authority, if he is sick as per extent rules. He is a regular habit of absenting without any intimation and submitting sick and fit certificates (PMC) at the time of joining.
3. The Inquiry Officer was appointed. The petitioner attended enquiry alongwith his defence Counsel. He also submitted his explanation denying the charges. The Inquiry Officer after conducting inquiry, submitted his report holding that both the charges were proved. The disciplinary authority, after considering the explanation of the petitioner against the inquiry officer's report, passed the order dated 20.04.2015, imposing the penalty of removal from service. The petitioner's appeal and revision were rejected on 10.06.2015 & 14.12.2015 respectively. The petitioner filed OA No.020/1510/2015, which was dismissed by the Tribunal vide judgment dated 13.07.2023, which is under challenge in the present writ petition.
4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits only that the petitioner did not sublet the railway quarter allotted to him.
5. We have considered the submission and perused the material on record.
6. Finding has been recorded by the Inquiry Officer accepted by the disciplinary authority that the petitioner illegally sublet the quarter allotted to him to the outsider by taking advance amount. The petitioner in his explanation (Ex.P10) has also stated about taking of some money from a person, though he stated that, that person forcefully occupied the allotted premises. The finding on proof charge is recorded and affirmed by the departmental authorities and the Tribunal.
7. The finding has also been recorded that the petitioner remained unauthorized absent from duty from 14.10.2014 to 19.12.2014. On this aspect nothing is argued before us. However, the reply of the respondent filed before the Tribunal shows the petitioner's previous unauthorised absent and the penalty imposed on various occasions, which is as under :
(i) Un-authorized absent for the period from 01.11.1999 to 15.11.1999 at JRT (Jarthi) Station :
Penalty imposed : Stoppage of Annual Increment for a period of 3 months with NCE : NIP No.WTI/UA/503/99 dated 06.04.2000.
(ii) Un-authorized absent for the period from 04.04.2000 to 23.04.2000 at JRT (Jarthi) Station :
Penalty imposed : Stoppage of Annual Increment for a period of 3 months with NCE : NIP No.WTI/UA/374/2000 dated 20.10.2000.
(iii) Un-authorized absent for the period from 20.02.2001 to 26.02.2001 at JRT (Jarthi) Station :
Penalty imposed : Stoppage of Annual Increment for a period of 3 months with NCE : NIP No.WTI/UA/151/2001 dated 10.08.2001.
(iv) Un-authorized absent for the period from 11.01.2002 to 25.01.2002 at JRT (Jarthi) Station :
Penalty imposed : Stoppage of Annual Increment for a period of 3 month
