AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
This Writ Petition is filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a Writ of Certiorari calling for the records in respect of the order passed in O.A.No.203 of 2006 dated 05.04.2006 on the file of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench, Hyderabad and quash the same; to declare the proceedings No.ST/VP-09/2005, dated 03.08.2005 as illegal, arbitrary and to set aside the same; and consequently direct the respondents to reconsider and review the punishment or compulsory retirement imposed against the petitioner in the light of the judgment in C.C.No.1327 of 1996, dated 16.08.2004.
Heard Mr. Ch. Ravinder, learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms. Anita, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Mr. G. Rama Rao, learned counsel for the respondents.
Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that petitioner was working as ‘Postal Assistant’ with the respondent-Department; the disciplinary authority initiated disciplinary proceedings alleging that petitioner had tampered the parcel containing answer sheets and replacing the answer sheets while the same were in custody of the petitioner; in the departmental enquiry, the said charge was proved, and basing upon the proven misconduct in the disciplinary enquiry, the disciplinary authority imposed major punishment of ‘removal from service’; criminal proceedings were also initiated against the petitioner in C.C.No.1327 of 1996 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Peddapalli; in the said criminal proceedings, the petitioner was acquitted by the competent Criminal Court vide order dated 16.08.2004 in C.C.No.1327 of 1996.
Learned counsel for the petitioner further contended that petitioner preferred appeal to the 2nd respondent-Appellate Authority, and the Appellate Authority was pleased to modify the punishment of removal to that of ‘compulsory retirement’; after the acquittal by the competent Criminal Court in the above referred case, petitioner submitted an application dated 07.09.2004 to the 2nd respondent-Appellate Authority seeking review of the punishment order in the light of acquittal by the Criminal Court; but the 2nd respondent-Appellate Authority, vide order dated 03.08.2005, rejected the case of petitioner and declined to modify the punishment of ‘compulsory retirement’.
Learned counsel for the petitioner further contended that challenging the rejection order dated 3.08.2005 passed by the 2nd respondent-Appellate Authority, petitioner has filed Original Application No.203 of 2006 before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench, Hyderabad; the learned Tribunal, without appreciating any of the contentions raised by the petitioner, had mechanically dismissed the O.A.; the disciplinary authority has initiated disciplinary proceedings for the identical charges as that of criminal case and the petitioner was acquitted in the criminal case; the appellate authority ought to have taken into account the acquittal of petitioner by the criminal court and ought to have set aside the orders of compulsory retirement and reinstated the petitioner into service; and therefore, prayed this Court to pass appropriate orders by setting aside the impugned order dated 03.08.2005 passed by the 2nd respondent-Appellate Authority and to further declare the petitioner as being entitled for reinstatement into service till he attained the age of superannuation.
On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents contended that petitioner was never tried identical set of charges by the Criminal Court as well as in the departmental proceedings; the disciplinary proceedings are altogether a different thing, and it has no comparison to that of criminal proceedings; petitioner was tried under Sections 380 and 120-B of Indian Penal Code, 1860, and if one were to look into the charges in the departmental enquiry and in the criminal case, they are quite different; so, mere acquittal in a criminal case would not entitle the petitioner to get the benefit of reinstatement into service by modifying the punishment of ‘compulsory retirement’.
Learned counsel for the respondents further contended that petitioner is getting pension as he has put in (26) years of service, and the learned Tribunal was justified in dismissing the O.A.; the Tribunal has also looked into the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Cholan Roadways Ltd., vs. G. Thirugnanasambandam [2005 (1) SLR (S.C.) 612], wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court had categorically held that acquittal of an employee in a criminal case per se would not bind the employer and does not automatically give the employee the right to be reinstated into service; the learned Tribunal has considered all the factors and accordingly dismissed the O.A.; and therefore, there are no merits in the Writ Petition and the same is liable to be dismissed.
This Court, after considering the rival submissions made on either side, is of the considered view that the learned Tribunal has rightly dismissed the O.A. preferred by the writ petitioner by relying on the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Cholan Roadways Ltd ([2005 (1) SLR (S.C.) 612]supra).
Therefore, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the order passed by the learned Tribunal, and the learned Tribunal was rightly justified in dismissing the O.A.
Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs.
As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending if any in this Writ Petition, shall stand closed.