THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA KODANDA RAM
W.A.Nos.1614&2199 of 2005
COMMON JUDGMENT: (Per LNR,J)
These two appeals are filed against the order, dated 29.06.2005 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.8070 of 1998. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as arrayed in the writ petition.
The petitioner initially rendered service in the Indian Navy between 1964 and 1974 and thereafter he was appointed as Sub-staff in the Syndicate Bank in the year 1975. He was promoted as clerk in the year 1977. In relation to his functioning at Chirala Branch of the Bank, a charge sheet dated 28.08.1998 was issued. The gist of the charge is that in the context of closing the account of one of the customers, the petitioner did not account for a sum of Rs.2,741-35 ps. After conducting the departmental enquiry, the disciplinary authority passed an order dated 05.03.1992 dismissing the petitioner from service. Aggrieved by that, the petitioner filed I.D.No.87 of 1994 before the Industrial Tribunal, Hyderabad. Through award, dated 18.03.1997, the Tribunal dismissed the I.D. Therefore, he filed the writ petition.
The contention of the petitioner was that the enquiry officer did not follow the prescribed procedure and on a particular day, not only the list of witnesses and documents were furnished but also the enquiry was commenced and concluded by requiring him to cross- examine the sole witness. It was also pleaded that though there was no allegation as to misappropriation, a finding was recorded to the effect that there was misappropriation. The respondents opposed the writ petition, but did not file any counter affidavit.
Through the order under appeal, the learned Single Judge has set aside the Award of the Tribunal and directed reinstatement into service but without any backwages and attendant benefits. While the petitioner filed W.A.No.2199 of 2005 feeling aggrieved by the denial of the relief of backwages and attendant benefits, the respondents filed W.A.No.1619 of 2005.
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
The allegation against the petitioner was that he failed to account for Rs.2,741-35 ps. in the books of the Branch. It was not even alleged that he misappropriated that amount. Further, it was alleged that this was one of several lapses.
The record discloses that the petitioner was commended for his meritorious service on several occasions. The incident of the failure to account for the amount took place in the year 1985, whereas the charge sheet was issued in 13 years thereafter. Certain abnormalities were also pointed out in the enquiry.
It may be true that in case the enquiry was defective, learned Single Judge ought to have remanded the matter for fresh enquiry. However, the fact that the petitioner has already rendered service in Navy and he is virtually at the fag end of the service in the Bank was taken note of and the relief of reinstatement into service, even while denying the backwages and attendant benefits, was granted. We do not find any serious infirmity in the relief granted by the learned Single Judge.
So far as the grievance of the petitioner is concerned, a decent balance was maintained by the learned Single Judge between the options of remanding the matter for fresh consideration and disposal by the enquiry officer and disciplinary authority on the one hand, and giving quietus to the entire episode on the other hand. It is brought to our notice that the petitioner has since retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation. We are not inclined to interfere with the order passed by the learned Single Judge.
Therefore, the writ appeals are dismissed.
The miscellaneous petitions filed in these writ appeals shall also stand disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.
L.NARASIMHA REDDY, J Date: 18.07.2014 JSU CHALLA KODANDA RAM, J THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA KODANDA RAM
W.A.Nos.1614&2199 of 2005
Date: 18.07.2014 JSU