Sri K.A. Mobin v. 1. The Vice Chairman and Managing Director

Petition Under Arlicle 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a Writ, Order or Direction especially on in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring order of punishment issued in proceedings in RC No.5461/1997 dated 16.11.1998, and confirmed the punishment in proceedings in RCNo.5461i'l997 dated 8-1 1-200'l and the order of rejection issued in proceedings in RC No.5461/1997 dated 10-3-2003 to the extent of confirming the order of compulsory retirement and directing the petitioner to pay 50% of alleged total loss to the tune of Rs.2,19,1221- is itlegal, arbitrary and in violation on Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of lndia and quash the same. l.A.NO:1 OF 2003(WPMP. NO: 10686 OF 2003) Petitiol Under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High CoL.t may be pleased to direct the re:;pondents release the gratuity and other pensionary benefits to the petitioner pending disposal of the writ petition. l.A.NO:2 OF 2003(WPMP. NO: 10687 OF 2003 ) Petitiorl under Section 151 CPC praying that in the,r.cumstances stated in the affidavit'iied in support of the petition, the High CoL-t may be pleased to direct the resoondents not to recover the amount of Rs.2,'lS 122l- in pursuance of the proceedirgs in RC.No.5461/1997 dated.10-3-2003 in ttr, ,nteresI of justice. Counsel for the Petitioners : SRI C.SHARAN REDDY Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1, 3 & 4 : GP FOR SERVIIES -ll Counsel for the Respondent Nos.2 & 5 : SRI P.V.V SATYAI,IARAYANA (SC FOR GTRTJAN C O) The Court made the following ORDER THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE PULLA I{ARTHIK WRIT PETITION No.8241 of 2OO3 ORDER: Assailing the orders dated 16.11.1998, 08.11.2001 and 1O.03.2003, passed by the respondents, to the extent of awarding and conhrming the compulsory retirement and directing petitioner No. 1 to pay 5Oo/o of the alleged loss to a tune of Rs.2,19,I22 / -, the present Writ Petition has been filed.

2. Heard Sri C. Sharan Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, learned Government Pleader for Services II on behalf of respondent Nos. 1, 3 and 5, ald Sri P.V.V. Satyanarayana Rao, learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.2 and 5.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that while petitioner No.1 was working as In-charge Regional Manager, I{yderabad, of the respondent Corporation, a charge memo dated

25.01.1996 was issued, framing four charges against him. Thereafter, petitioner No. 1 submitted his explanation, denying the charges. However, without considering the same, al enquiry was conducted in gross violation of principles of natural justice and the i I I I I i I I i i x 1 t ' I I I 2 PK,] W.P.No.8241 of 20O3 enquiry olficcr submitted his report on l4.lt.l9t7, holding all the charges leveled against petitioner No. 1 as proved. I hcreafter, a noticc dated 01.01.1998 was issued to him, calling for ex1;Lanation as to why the proposed punishment shall not be impose:1. In responsc, petitioner No.1 appeared before the authorities an<l requested to drop furthcr proceedings against him. However, \ ,ith()r r t considering his request, respondcnt No. 1 issued proceedings cated 16.11.1998, imposing thc punishment of Compulsory Retirerr cnt from Service, and propose<l to recover an amount of Rs.3,28,68i7,'- towards 7 5o/o of the alleged loss. It is further submitted that petitioler No.1 preferred a statutory appeal against the said order before the Board of Directors on 15.01.1999, which was rejected, confirmrng the order of compulsory retirement, but the punishment to thc cxtent of recovery was reduced from 7 5o/o to 50%, i.e., from Rs.3,28,687/- to Rs.2,19,\t1.2/-.

4. It is further submitted that during the penct,ncy of the appeal preferred by petitioner No. 1, respondent No.2 fil:d an Arbitration Claim vide A.R.C.No.1O4 of 1999 before responden. No.S, which was dismissed on 24.06.2002, holding that petitioner No. 1 was no way concerned rvith the alleged loss caused to lhe respondent Corporation. However, it was advised to place the ntatter before the I I I 3 PK, .] W.P.No.8241 of 2003 Board for further examination and consideration of reducing the recovery of Rs.2,I9,122/-. Thereafter, petitioner No. I submitted a representation on 19.I1.2OO2, duly enclosing the copy of the aforesaid award, and requested to re-consider his case. However, his request was once again rejected vide proceedings dated 10.03.2003, stating [hat the Board has already passed the orders dated 17.lO.2OOl, conhrming the punishment and modifying the quantum of recovery. Learned counsel contends that the Tribunat categorically recorded a finding that petitioncr No. 1 was no way responsible for thc alleged transactions. Therefore, the impugned order dated 16.11.1998, imposing the major punishment of compulsory retirement from service, apart from the recovery of 7 SVo of the alleged pecuniary loss (modified to 50%), and the orders dated 0g.11.2001 and 10.O3.2OO3, confirming the said order and rejecting the claim of the petitioner, are highly illegal and arbitrary. Therefore, learned counsel for the petitioners prays this Court to allow the present writ petition by setting aside the impugned orders dated 16. 11.1998,

08. 1 1.2OO1 and 1O.O3.20O3.

5. Per contra, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents submits that a bulk quantity of 1,753 Aluminum cans was purchased during the year l9g2-93, at a whopping amount of 4 PK, J w.P.No.8241 of 2OO3 Rs.22,49,84O /-, from one M/s. Sri Venkata Karaka Adi Jaya Lakshmi Tladers, \i ijayawada, who was neither a manufactrrrer nor a reputed s,holesale: of the said product in the markel . Thereafter, on verificatior of the accounts, it was found that large soalc irregularities were committcd in the above purchasc, causing it loss to a tune o[ Rs.6,68,945.45 to the CorporaLion, and petitioner .{o. 1 u,as found to be the person responsible for the entire trans€ction. As such, disciplinary proceedings were initiated against hinr ald other ofhccrs of the Corporation against whom a pima facie wa.; established, and an enquiry olficer u,as appointed vide proceedings d rted 16.10.1995.

6. It js submitted that petitioner No. I wa s aflorded every opportunity to participate in the cnquiry, put-fo rivard his dcfense, cross-exarnine thc witnesses, etc. However, hc: rvas highly r-ron- cooperative in the enquiry and dragged the proceerlings on one or-the other prelexts, due to which, the enquiry whicL was initiated in Ja-rtuary, 1996, came to be concluded only in Nor,,'mbc1, i997, with the enquiry ofhcer submitting his report on 14.11 1997, holding ail the charges levelcd against him as proved. ThereaIr.er, a notice dated 0i.01.1998 rvas issued to petitioner No.1, calling f:rr his explanation as to wh-/ he shall not be dismissed from ser.,, ce, apart from a recovery of '/ 5o/o of the loss caused to the Corpc ration. However, l l ,1 I i I 5 PK, J W.P.No.8241 of 2003 instead of submitting his explanation, petitioner No. I sought for a d.e nouo enqtiry, only to prolong the proceedings. As such, in view of the proven charges and the fact that no explalation was submitted by petitioner No. 1, the Corporation was left with no other option but to impose the punishment of Compulsory Retirement from Service, apart from a recovery of Rs.3,28,687 / -, winich was later reduced in his appeal to an amount of Rs.2,19,125/-, being 50% of the total loss sustained by the Corporation.

7. It is further submitted that the Corporation had filed an Arbitration Claim for recovery of Rs.3,2g,697/-, during the pendency of the petitioner's appeal, which was dismissed on 24.06.2002, as time-barred, requesting to re-consider the case of petitioner No. 1 in view ol the orders passed therein. However, even prior to the disposal of the said matter, orders were passed in the appeal preferred by the petitioner, conhrming the punishment of Compulsory Retirement from Service imposed upon him, while reducing the recovery amount from Rs.3,28,687l- to Rs.2,19,t22/-. It is contended that the disciplinary proceedings ald the proceedings before respondent No.5 are different and distinct, and the mere dismissal of A.R.C.No.104 of 1999 cannot be a ground to exonerate the petitioner from the charges, which had been held proved in the departmental enquiry. As such, petitioner 6 PK, J W.P.N,.8241 oJ 2OO3 No. 1 carr nol takc the shelter of such irreler':rnt and baselcss observations made of the Arbitrator, as the said arrthority is neither competent nor has an authority to commenl o: r the disciplinary proceedings initiated by the respondent Corporrl.ion, Hence, the respondents arc justified in imposing the impugrr<,d pnnishment for the proven misconduct, and therefore, it is pra.7::ti to dismiss thc present writ petition.

8. This Court has taken note of thc rival submt:;sions/ contcntions urged by the learned counsel for the respective part es.

9. Admittcdly, while petitioner No. 1 was worling as Divisional Manager, Snsailam, and In-charge Regional Manzrller, Hyderabad, of respondent Corporation, a charge memo dated 2. 01.1996, framing four charges, was issued and an enquiry was or<l::red, whcrein, the chargcs Ievcrled against him were held proved, rcsulting in the imposition ol the punishment of Compulsory Retirc ncnt from Service, apart from recovery ot Rs.3,28,687 /-, (75% ol the alleged loss sustained b1r the respondent Corporation) vide troceedings dated

16.11.19qt8. The petitioncr primarily contr:nded that the departmental enquiry is vitiated, as it was co nducted in gross violation ,tf ltrinciples of nalural justice. Howevc.r , the respondents :j I I I I I 7 PK, J W.P.No.8241 of 2003 I I I I categorically opposed this claim stating that the petitioner was given sufficient opportunity in the enquiry, but he himself was uncooperative in the matter.

10. Further, the petitioner relies on the award passed by respondent No.5 in A.R.C.No. 104 of 1999, wherein, it was observed that petitioner No. t herein was no way responsible for the alleged loss sustained by the Corporation. However, as rightly contendcd by the respondents, the disciplinary proceedings arld arbitration proceedings are different and distinct. As such, the hndings of an arbitrator cannot have a direct bearing on the disciplinary proceedings.

11. It is trite law that the scope of judicial review in disciplinary matters is limited and Courts refrain to interfere in such matters. unlcss thcre is a clear violation of fundamentai rights, improper conduct of enquiry, and if the punishment imposed is shockingly disproportionate to the proven misconduct.

12. [n the instant case, all the charges against petitioner No.1 with regard to his involvement in the transaction causing substantia-l loss to the respondent Corporation, were held proved by the enquiry officer, resulting in the imposition of the punishment of Compulsory Retirement from Service, apart from recovery of Rs.3,28,687 /- vide 8 PK, J W.l'.No.8241 of 2OO3 proccedings datcd 16.i1.1998. In the appeal pre.i,rred by petitioner No.1, the au-hcrity has exercised its discretion anc reduced the said amount tc, ps.2,19,122/- vide proceedings dated 0U l L.2OOl, which is just ancl proper lor thc proven misconduct.

12. For thc preceding reasons, this Court hnd s, no merit in the present writ l)ctition and the same is liable to be dir; nrssed.

13. Accordingly, thc Writ pctition is dismisscd. Misr:ellaneous applications, if any, pending in t1.ris writ petition, shall sternrl closcd. No costs. I To SA /rRUEcoPY//l\\ - I AS;SISTA-,.R/;8iBYRXA i\t Hyderabad[OUT] sEcroNoFFrcER 1. Two CCs to Gp FoR SERVTCES-1, Hign co.\n [) the Srate of Tetangana at 2. One CC to SRI C.SHARAN REDDY. Advocate-topU( t 3. One CC rc SRt p V V SATYANARAYANA (SC FOR GiR|JAN C O) Advocate 4. Two CD Copies loPUCl - \, /- ry,, ,/ :.- j I ili t025 : HIGH COURT DATED:1710712025 ORDER WP.No.8241 of 2003 DISMISSING THE W.P WITHOUT COSTS. 0'1 \q q