IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD
FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH
TUESDAY THIS THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND FOURTEEN PRESENT
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO WRIT PETITION No.13366 of 2014
Between:
N.P. Reddy . PETITIONER And The Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, Rep.by its Managing Director, Hyderabad, and another . RESPONDENTS The Court made the following:
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO WRIT PETITION No.13366 of 2014
ORDER:
This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a Writ of Certiorari by quashing the impugned proceeding No.01/305(1)/2013-GDL, dated 16.04.2014 proposing to impose the punishment of removal from service dated 24.04.2014 served on 02.05.2014 as arbitrary, capricious, discriminatory and in violation of Articles 14,16 & 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently to direct the respondents to reinstate the petitioner into service with all consequential benefits.
2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents/APSRTC.
3. It is alleged that charge sheet was issued to the petitioner, and he being a conductor was entrusted with the duties of A.D.C. that he has drawn the double duty amounts of the driver fraudulently in the name of wrong persons who were not entrusted with the double duty. After receiving the explanation from the petitioner, an enquiry was ordered against him on 12.11.2013. It is submitted by the petitioner that the enquiry was conducted without following the procedure and without affording opportunity to represent his case and examine the witnesses. Thus, according to him, he did not participate in the enquiry and a report was submitted by the enquiry officer to the disciplinary authority. According to the petitioner, the department made allegations against him and two other employees and framed same charges but imposed different and discriminatory punishments. Obviously, the petitioner was ultimately removed from service; whereas the other two employees against whom the enquiry was held on the same allegations, a punishment of stoppage of two annual increments with cumulative effect was ordered besides treating the period of suspension as ‘not on duty’ for all purposes.
4. To the show cause notice issued to the petitioner proposing punishment, the petitioner submitted his explanation, dated 26.10.2013 wherein he clearly stated that the action of the disciplinary authority is nothing but arbitrary and discriminatory as other two employees against whom similar charges were framed were given duty by revoking the suspension and proposing punishment of stoppage of two annual increments with cumulative effect besides treating the period of suspension as ‘not on duty’ for all purposes. Therefore, the petitioner questioned the approach of the disciplinary authority in proposing the said punishment as unfair and discriminatory in the explanation submitted by him.
5. Perusal of the charges clearly reveals that the allegations made against the petitioner and two other employees are one and the same. Obviously, a grave punishment of removal from service was imposed on the petitioner while the punishment of deferment of two annual increments with cumulative effect was imposed on the other two employees. In this context, it would be necessary to refer to the judgment of the Apex Court in
[1]
RAJENDER YADAV v. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS wherein the Apex Court held as follows:
“The doctrine of equality applies to all who are equally placed; even among persons who are found guilty. The persons, who have been found guilty can also claim equality of treatment, if they can establish discrimination while imposing punishment when all of them are involved in the same incident. Parity among co-delinquents has also to be maintained when punishment is being imposed. Punishment should not be disproportionate while comparing the involvement of co-delinquents who are parties to the same transaction or incident. The disciplinary authority cannot impose punishment which is disproportionate i.e. lesser punishment for serious offences and stringent punishment for lesser offences.
We are of the view that the principle laid down in the abovementioned judgments would also apply to the facts of the present case. WE have already indicated that the action of the disciplinary authority imposing a comparatively lighter punishment on the co-delinquent Arjun Pathak and at the same time, harsher punishment on the appellant cannot be permitted in law, since they were all involved in the same incident. Consequently, we are inclined to allow the appeal by setting aside the punishment of dismissal from service imposed on the appellant and order that he be reinstated in service forthwith. The appellant is, therefore, to be reinstated from the date on which Arjun Pathak was reinstated and be given all consequential benefits as were given to Arjun Pathak. Ordered accordingly. However, there will be no order as to costs.”
6. The aforesaid decision squarely applies to the facts of the present case. On account of the fact that parity among four delinquents was not maintained by the authority while imposing punishment, the imposition of punishment of removal from service against the petitioner being arbitrary and discriminatory is unsustainable in law and is liable to be modified in this writ petition.
7. Consequently, the punishment of removal from service imposed on the petitioner is set aside. The petitioner is directed to be reinstated into service. However, the punishment of stoppage of two annual increments with cumulative effect besides treating the period of suspension as ‘not on duty’ for all purposes is imposed against the petitioner.
With the above modification, the writ petition is partly allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.
Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed in consequence.
R.KANTHA RAO,J
Date: 16.12.2014 Note:
Furnish C.C. within a week.
B/O Ccm THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE R. KANTHA RAO WRIT PETITION No.13366 of 2014 Date:16.12.2014
[1] (2013) 3 SCC 73