Union of India v. P. Gunasekaran. Para

Petitign under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court may be pleased to suspend the order passed in wP No.4307/2024, dt.2710212025, pending disposal of the above writ aPPeal. Counsel for the Appellant: SRI CHIDAGAM SRINIVAS FOR SRI k.VASUDEVA Counsel for the Res pondent No.1: SRI BAGLEKAR AKASH KUMAR Counsel for the Res pondent Nos.2 & 3: GP FOR SERVICES-Ill REDDY The Court made the follgwing: JUDGMENT r-1 I I i I THE HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE SUJOY PAUL AND THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE RENUKA YARA IIRIT APPEAL No. 536 of 2O25 JUDGMENT: (Per the Hon'ble the Acting Chief Justit:e Sujog paul) Sri Chidagam Srinivas, learned counsel appearing for Sri K.Vasudeva Reddy, learned counsel for the appellants ald Sri Baglekar Akash Kumar, learned counsel or respondent No.1.

2. With the consent, fina1ly heard.

3. This intra Court appeal takes exception to the order of a learned Single Judge passed W.P.No.4307 of 2024 dated 1n

27.02.2025.

4. The brief facts necessar5r for adjudication of this writ appeal are that the respondent No. 1/writ petitioner was subjected to discipiinary proceedings which ended with punishment of dismissa,l from service on 13.06.2011. Aggrieved, respondent No.1 filed W.P.No.22240 of 2072 assailing the said punishment. The said writ petition was disposed of on 18.02.2023 holding that the punishment of dismissal is disproportionate in nature and accordingly, the competent authority was directed to reconsider \l IrlII I ; I I I t t i I I i 2 the punishment of dismissa,l within a stipulated time This order of writ Court .ras unsuccessfuliy challenged in W.A.No.Bgl of 2023 which cale to be dismissed on 0g.09.2023.

5. In obedir:;rce of this Court,s order in W,p.No.22i,4O of 2012, the competent rruthority passed the order dated 23.c r.2o24 and modified the ptu-iishment as under:_ "That the Feriod of dismissal of Sri A.Rajaram Reddg from the Scrvice of KCUB as Chief Execuiive Offlcer from 13-06 2011 to the date of Joining in the Lou.er gr.rde in service or post is treated :rr d no Salary7' remu neration for that period shall be paicl to h m. An undertaking to the effect that he will not claim an1, sa lary of service bentfits for the said period, shall be p.odu:.,;;;io;; admitting hrra in to duty. ,,Dies_non, "i Sri.A. Rajaran Service of Krl Service, u,h: Executive O [J High Court lr 2023." r Reddy is reinstated as Accountant/B.M. in the UB, on reduction in rank to a. Lower gr;,rde in le on reversion from the post of th-e Chief icer, in obedience to the orders of the Hon,ble L W.P No. 22240 of 2Ol2 and, in W.A. No. 181 of (trmphasis su1 ,plied) 6 Assailing tfLis modified punishment, the instant u rit petition i.e., W.P.No.43(t't of 2024 was filed. After hearing both the parties, the learned Single Judge passed the following or der:_ "2O. A peruszrl of the record shows that out of 16 chargt s, 12 were held to tre proved against the petitioner by tn. enquiry offrcer, which only showJ that u -.jo. po.tio" if ir," ch rges ,.-'- --- - r,arar,x.-:- 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 13.06.201 1 to O2.O2.2O24 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 Vij ay 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. 2 1 . Thus, the respondents are drrected to pav back wages to the petitioner 5O7o of the net salary in the present post i.e Accountant/8.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." The present intra Court appeal is directed against this order. (Emphasis supplied) 7 . The learned counsel for the appellants submits that the learned single Judge was not justified in granting 50%o back wages to respondent No.1 for the interregnum period between

13.06.2011 to OI.O2.2O24 (the period between the previous punishment of dismissal and modified punishment of reductioniln rark to a lower grade) I I iI r : I 4 B. Learned ,rlunsel for respondent No.1 submits tlLat once the punishment o'rler is modified, such modification sl iould relate back to the date of original punishment.

9. No other point is pressed by the learned courrsel for the parties.

10. We have reard the learned counsel for the parti:s at length and perused th: record. 1 1 . The adm.tted facts are that the earlier punis ement was found to be e;<:essive in nature and therefore, the competent authority, in c,bedience of this Court,s order, ,sub;tituted, or 'modified' the p,,nishment by order dated 23.01.2024. In other words, since punishment of dismissal \ /as ht 1d to be inappropriate, tbe substituted punishment was tmposerl.

12. In our cor,r;idered opinion, the said substituted tr,unishment must relate bac[: to the date of original punishment. A Division Bench of Madh.ra pradesh High Court, to which one c f us (Sp,J) i I , i I I I l i .l i :. 5 was a member, in Hlndustan Petroleum Corltoration Ltd, v Kailash Chand.rat opined as under:- "35.The ancillary question is whether while rightly setting aside the punishment of dismissai and while remanding the matter for reconsideration, the learned Single Judge was justihed in directing reinstatement with back wages. We do not think learned single Judge followed right course. In a matter of this nature where punishment of dismissal is sel! aside and matter is remanded back to the disciplinarv authority to impose anv other punishment (mentioned in para 17 of impuqned iudgment) the onlv course open to the learned Single Judqe was to observe that the substituted penalW imposed bv the disciolinarv authorilv shall take place of punishment of dismissal from due date and all benehts arisin out of said substituted punishment will ensue. To this extent, we find considerable force in the argument of learned counsel for appeliants that iearned Single Judge has gone wrong in directing reinstatement with salary, increments and other benefits. These benefits will depend upon the nature of substituted punishments. We Iind support in our view from (2O15f 2 SCC 610 Union of India v. P. Gunasekaran. Para 25 reads thus:- "25. The last contenLion is with regard to date of effect of the punishment. Accordrng to the respondent, even assuming that compulsory retirement is to be imposed, it could be only with effect from the date of order vtz.28-2- 2O00. We are unable to appreciate the contention. The respondent stood dismissed from service as per order dated 1O.6.1997. It was that punishment which was directed to be reconsidered. Consequent thereon only, tJ e punishment was altered/ substituted to compuisory retirement. Necessarily . it has to be from the date of dismissal from service viz. 1O.6.1997." (Emphasis supplied) I 2021 scc online MP 3385 6

13. This -judgrrent of Madhya pradesh High Court is based on the judgment of Supreme Court in Union oJ Indio. v P.Gunasekarq.nz. Any other view, in our judgment, witl lead to absurdity. Pu tting it differently, if the argument of learned counsel for the appellants is accepted, the result r.l-or r1d be that from the initia, date of punishment, tili the modifi:d date of punishment, the respondent No.1 shail be suf lering the punishment of dismissal from service and from pasr ring of the order dated 23.il.2024, he will be suffering another punishment of reduction in rank. As per the settled legar position in service jurisprudence. a. employee cannot be punished with tv,o different punishment.s for different spells for the same misconduct. In this view of the matt:r and in order to give quietus to the iit gation, we deem it proper tr modify the relief as well as the directi rns issued by the learnecl S ngle Judge.

14. Accordingl'. the writ appeal is disposed of by dirr:cting that the modifiecl purrishment of reduction in rank shair ake effect from the date cf original punishment 1.e., 13.06.201t with all consequential berLefits. No order as to costs. '1zots;zsccero { t -I i I I I I 7 Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, sha1l stand closed. //TRUE COPY// . SD/.N. RAJAGOPAL DEPUry REGISFAR SECTION WrcCA The Commissioner for Co-operation and Registrar of Co-operative Societies. Telangana, 3rd ftoor. Gruhakatpa auituings, i.pp O1"Oi i-6^rii'"I ffi;;it;; Hyderabad 500 00'1. The Principal Secretary, Co-operation Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad, State of Telanoana 9n" 99 to SRT K.VASUDEVA REDDy, Advocate tOpUCl 9n" 99 to sRt BAGLEKAR.A54qI KUMAR,-ftvb;rtE ibpuct Two CCs to GP FOR SERVTCES-ilt, U,gh Coirrtloiiiluttii" orielangana, at Hyderabad. IOUTI Two CD Copies I t I To 1 2 3 4 5 o PSK. BS HIGH COURT' DATED:0210512025 JUDGMENT WA.No.S36 of 2025 ,--=j- /' --. : . ,J'.: /,' .,.' It:'.'. 1t ;.: $ \::1 ,as, DISPOSING OF THE WRIT APPEAL WITHOUT COSTS 4 1,b 5 7 I i i I I i r I I v. r i Ii I ! I