Back
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
J. SREENIVAS RAO, J.
S.P.S. Venkataraman S/o. S.P.Subbaiah Swamy - Appellant
Versus
The Cotton Corporation of India Limited – Respondent
Writ Petition No.27683 of 2005
Decided on : 31-08-2023
Disciplinary Proceedings - Removal from Service - CCI, CBA Rules, 1975 - Bhagat Ram v. State of Himachal Pradesh and others, (1983) 2 SCC 442; D.S.Nakara and others v. Union of India, 1983 AIR 130; Basti Ram v. Union of India and others, 1996 (30) SLR 308; Ram Kishan v. Union of India and others, (1995) 6 SCC 157; Union of India v. H.C. Goel, AIR 1964 SC 364 - The court discussed the disciplinary proceedings, principles of natural justice, and the proportionality of punishment in the context of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a Junior Cotton Purchaser, was removed from service by the respondent Corporation following a fire accident in the CWC Godown. The petitioner was held responsible for not renewing the insurance policy, resulting in a substantial financial loss to the Corporation. The petitioner challenged the removal through a writ petition.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the punishment of removal from service was disproportionate and excessive, considering the petitioner's service record and the circumstances of the case. The court also noted the directive to examine the matter with regard to discrimination in imposing punishment, as per the earlier order.
Issues: The issues involved whether the punishment imposed was in accordance with the law and whether the petitioner was entitled to the relief sought in the writ petition.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the importance of fair disciplinary proceedings, equal treatment, and proportional penalties for individuals. It cited relevant judgments to support the principle of avoiding disproportionate punishments and upholding constitutional rights.
Final Decision: The writ petition was allowed in part, setting aside the removal from service and directing the respondents to pay service benefits to the petitioner with 50% back wages.
ORDER :
This writ petition is filed seeking writ of certiorari to quash the order of removal from service passed by respondent No.1 vide Proceedings No.CCI/VIG/ADB/1353/2005-06 dated 17.11.2005 and with a direction, deeming the petitioner had been continued in service and his service be treated on duty for all purposes.
2. Heard Sri D.Laxminarayana, learned counsel, representing Sri Nazeer Khan, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Sri A.K.Jayaprakash Rao, learned counsel for the respondents.
3. The brief facts of the case are that:
3.1. The petitioner was appointed as Junior Cotton Purchaser in the respondent Corporation on 03.12.1979 and he was entrusted with the work of Central Warehouse Corporation (CWC) Godown In-charge at Adilabad, pursuant to the orders dated 18.12.1990. The petitioner applied compensatory medical leave from 21.05.1991 to 09.06.1991 and the leave was granted by the respondent Corporation and he handed over the charge of CWC Godown to Sri D.L.Masali. While things stood thus, on 7/8.06.1991 a fire accident was taken place in CWC Godown and 2351 FP Bales burnt to ashes out of the closing stock of 9861 FB Bales in Godown and the respondent Corporation incurred loss to an amount of Rs.72.13 lakhs and the respondent Corporation suspended the petitioner and three other officers from the services. Thereafter, the respondent Corporation appointed one Sri D.N.Daithakar as enquiry officer, invoking the Rule 25(2) of CCI, CBA Rules, 1975 (hereinafter called for brevity, ‘the Rules’). The enquiry officer framed the charges and issued charge memo to the petitioner along with other three persons and after conducting enquiry he submitted enquiry report on 09.03.1994. The respondent Corporation issued notice by enclosing copy of the enquiry report directing the petitioner to submit his explanation why the punishment of removal from services should not be imposed against him. The petitioner submitted a detailed explanation on 25.03.1994 requesting the respondent Corporation to consider his representation and render justice by exonerating him from all the charges, as he has not committed any irregularity while discharging his duties. Respondent No.2/disciplinary authority passed the order dated 25.05.1994 by imposing the punishment removing the petitioner from services. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner filed appeal before respondent No.1 and the same was dismissed on 25.07.1994. Thereafter, the petitioner approached this Court and filed W.P.No.16582 of 1994 and same was disposed of on 19.08.2005 by setting aside the order dated 25.07.1994 and respondent No.1 is directed to examine the matter with regard to discrimination in imposing punishment.
3.2. Thereafter respondent No.1 passed impugned order on 17.11.2005 confirming the removal order passed by the disciplinary authority dated 26.05.1994. Questioning the said orders, the petitioner filed the present writ petition.
4. Submissions of the respective counsel:
4.1. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner has not committed any irregularity, illegality or misappropriation during his service. The petitioner applied compensatory medical leave from 21.05.1991 to 09.06.1991 and during the said leave period, a fire accident took place on 07/08.06.1991 and the petitioner is no way responsible to the said incident. The major charge levelled against the petitioner is that the petitioner has not taken any steps for reviewing and updating the Insurance Policies/advices. He submits that the petitioner is no way concerned in respect of reviewing/renewal of insurance policy and for the coverage of insurance/renewal of insurance, it is the primary duty of the Centre In-charge not by the Godown in-charge. Admittedly, the petitioner is discharging his duties as Godown in-charge. The respondent Corporation, without initiating any proceedings against the Centre In-charge, shifted the entire burden against the petitioner, who is no way concerned with the renewa
The disciplinary authority's decision to remove the employee for financial misconduct was upheld, as the inquiry followed due process and the employee admitted to significant charges.
The dismissal of the petitioner was set aside due to procedural irregularities and violation of natural justice, entitling him to retiral benefits.
The court established that a wilful absence from duty, especially in emergency situations, constitutes misconduct under the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Central Rules, and that disciplinar....
Disciplinary penalties must be proportionate to the misconduct, considering the individual's service history and circumstances surrounding the case.
The principle of proportionality in disciplinary actions requires penalties to align with the severity of misconduct, particularly when mitigating circumstances and lack of prior incidents exist.
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
