Back
2025 Supreme(Telangana) 215
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
SUJOY PAUL, ACJ., RENUKA YARA, J.
The Additional Collector / PIC Chairman - Appellant
Versus
A.Rajaram Reddy - Respondent
Writ Appeal No.536 Of 2025
Decided On : 02-05-2025
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : K VASUDEVA REDDY
For the Respondent: BAGLEKAR AKASH KUMAR
Modified disciplinary punishment must retroactively apply to avoid dual penalty for the same misconduct, ensuring compliance with principles of proportionality in administrative law.
Headnote:(A) The High Court’s decision is guided by principles of administrative law governing disciplinary actions, specifically concerning the proportionality and retroactivity of punishment adjustments. (Para 20)
(B) The court held that reinstatement with modified punishment should be effective retroactively to the original date of dismissal to avoid dual punishment for the same misconduct. (Para 12)
Facts of the case:
The respondent was dismissed on 13.06.2011 after disciplinary proceedings. Following court intervention, this dismissal was deemed disproportionate, leading to a modified punishment set in 2024, which stipulated that dismissal period is treated as 'dies-non.' (Para 5)
Findings of Court:
The court found that the learned Single Judge exceeded limits by awarding back wages to the respondent despite recognition of modified punishment. The decision clarifies that punishment adjustments must reflect original dismissal dates to maintain fairness. (Para 14)
Issues: The principal questions involved the appropriateness of awarded back wages and the application of punishment modification. (Paragraphs 7 and 8)
Ratio Decidendi: It was determined that an employee shouldn't face dual punishments for identical misconduct and that penalties should retroactively apply to avoid injustice. (Para 12)
Result: Writ appeal allowed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. nature of disciplinary proceedings and modifications. (Para 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 2. arguments over back wages due to modified punishment. (Para 7 , 8) |
| 3. court's reasoning on effectuation of punishment. (Para 10 , 11) |
| 4. substituted punishment must relate back to original. (Para 12) |
| 5. court's observations on linking modified punishment back to dismissal. (Para 13) |
| 6. final judgment and directives. (Para 14) |
JUDGMENT :
(Sujoy Paul, ACJ.)
Sri Chidagam Srinivas, learned counsel appearing for Sri K.Vasudeva Reddy, learned counsel for the appellants and Sri Baglekar Akash Kumar, learned counsel or respondent No.1.
2. With the consent, finally heard.
3. This intra Court appeal takes exception to the order of a learned Single Judge passed in W.P.No.4307 of 2024 dated 27.02.2025.
4. The brief facts necessary for adjudication of this writ appeal are that the respondent No.1/writ petitioner was subjected to disciplinary proceedings which ended with punishment of dismissal from service on 13.06.2011. Aggrieved, respondent No.1 filed W.P.No.22240 of 2012 assailing the said punishment. The said writ petition was disposed of on 18.07.2023 holding that the punishment of dismissal is disproportionate in nature and accordingly, the competent authority was directed to reconsider the punishment of dismissal within a stipulated time. This order of writ Court was unsuccessfully challenged in W.A.No.881 of 2023 which came to be dismissed on 08.09.2023.
5. In obedience of this Court’s order in W.P.No.22240 of 2012, the competent authority passed the order dated 23.01.2024 and modified the punishment as under:-
“That the Period of dismissal of Sri A.Rajaram Reddy from the Service of KCUB as Chief Executive Officer, from 13-06-2011 to the date of Joining in the Lower grade in service or post is treated as "Dies-non" and no Salary/remuneration for that period shall be paid to him. An undertaking to the effect that he will not claim any salary of service benefits for the said period, shall be produced before admitting him in to duty.
Sri.A.Rajaram Reddy is reinstated as Accountant/B.M. in the Service of KCUB, on reduction in rank to a Lower grade in Service, while on reversion from the post of the Chief Executive Officer, in obedience to the orders of the Hon'ble High Court in W.P No. 22240 of 2012 and in W.A. No. 881 of 2023.”
(Emphasis supplied)
6. Assailing this modified punishment, the instant writ petition i.e., W.P.No.4307 of 2024 was filed. After hearing both the parties, the learned Single Judge passed the following order:-
“20. A perusal of the record shows that out of 16 charges, 12 were held to be proved against the petitioner by the Enquiry Officer, which only shows that a major portion of the charges were proved. Moreover, a perusal of the judgment in C.C.No.178 of 2013 shows that the petitioner was acquitted by giving the benefit of doubt, but not a clean acquittal. There is no dispute that the petitioner is a physically challenged person and he was out of employment during the period from 13.06.2011 to 02.02.2024 and though the petitioner requested for payment of back wages, the respondents have denied the back wages during the said period. As stated in previous paras, in the absence of any provision, the imposition of punishment of "dies-non and no salary/remuneration" is contrary to the said Rule 19(ii) as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Vijay Singh (2nd supra). In those circumstances, the petitioner cannot be declined of back wages. However, he is not entitled to get full payment of back wages.
21. Thus, the respondents are directed to pay back wages to the petitioner @ 50% of the net salary in the present post i.e. Accountant/B.M. from 13.06.2011 to 01.02.2024 within a period of two (02) months from the date of a copy of this order.”
(Emphasis supplied)
The present intra Court appeal is directed against this order.
7. The learned counsel for the appellants submits that the learned single Judge was not justified in granting 50% back wages to
