High Court · 2025

Petition under Article 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 or order more particularly one in the nature of writ of Certiorari, call for the records relating and connected to the impugned order in O.A. No. 04 of 2O2O, dated 06.03.2024, passed by the Honble Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench, and set aside the same as illegal. arbitrary and contrary to the law. I i I l l I i .ir*#HElf?T1?Pryr -----aa---a lA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section '151 CPC praying that in thr: crrcumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Crurt may be pleased to grant say of all further proceedings against impugned order in O.A.No. 04 of 2020 dated 06-03-2024 passed by the Honble Central l\dministrative Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench, during the pendency of this Writ Petition before this Honble Court, otherurrise the applicant shall suffer irreparable loss and hardship. Counsel for the Petitioners: SRI G.PAVAN KUMAR, SC FDR ESIC Counsel forthe Respondent No.1:SRl B.PAVAN KUMAR, REp. FOR SRI A.RAGHU KUMAF: Counsel forthe Respondent No.2: SRI GADI PRAVEEN l(UMAR, DEPUTY SOLICITOR ,GENER|AL OF INDTA WRIT PETITION NO: 16764 OF 2025 Between:

1. The Dire,:tor General, Hqrs. Office, ESI Corporation, panchdeep Bhawan, 2, CIG Marg, New Delhi-110002.

2. The lnsurance Commis_sioner, (Appellate Authority), Hqrs. Office, ESI Corporation, Panchdeep Bhawan, 2, CIG l/arg, New [i6ihi-,li0002.

3. The Regional Director, ESI Corporation, Regional r.)ffice, 5-9-23, Hill Fort 4 T.he [\,4edical-Superintendent, ESIC Medical College Hospital, Sanathnagar, Road, Adarshnagar, Hyderabad-500063. Hyderabad 500038. AND 1 Sri. K. Orderly, 500038. Brahma Chary, S/o. Late K. Siddaiah Charv Aqe l]0. Occ. Nursino ESIC lVledical College Hospital, Sanathr.agir. HyDERABAD "- 2 Union of Ind.ia, Repre-sented by the Principal Secretarl,. Ministry of Labour and tmployment, Govt. of lndia, Shramshakli Bhavan, Neir Delhi ...PETITIONERS .,.RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lnrjia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, th: High Court may be pleased to issue a writ or order more particularly one ir r the niture of writ of Certiorari, call 'or the records relating and connected to the impugned order in O.A. No. 19 of 2020, dated 06.03.2024, passed by the Hon'ble Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench, and set aside the same as illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the law. lA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition 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 grant say of all further proceedings against impugned order in O.A.No- '1 9 of 2020 dated 06-03-2024 passed by the Hon'ble Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench, during the pendency of this Writ Petition before this Hon'ble Court, otherwise the applicant shall suffer irreparable loss and hardship. Counsel for the Petitioners: SRI G.PAVAN KUMAR, SC FOR ESIC Counsel forthe Respondent No.1: SRI B.PAVAN KUMAR, REP. FOR SRI A.RAGHU KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent No.2: SRI GADI PRAVEEN KUMAR, DEPUTY SOLICITOR GENERIAL OF INDIA WRIT PETITION NO: 16781 OF 202s Between:

1. The Director General, Hqrs. Office, ESI Corporation, Panchdeep Bhawan, 2, CIG Marg, New Dethi-1 '10002.

2. The lnsurance Commissioner (Appellate Authority), Hqrs. Office, ESI Corporation, Panchdeep Bhawan, 2, CIG ltilarg, New Delhi-1 10002.

3. The Regional Director, ESI Corporation, Regional Office, 5-9-23, Hill Fort Road, Adarshnagar, Hyderabad-500063.

4. The Medical Superintendent, ESIC t\4edical College Hospital, Sanathnagar, Hyderabad 500038. AND 1 2 Smt. M. Bhagyamma, Wo. Srinivas, Age.36. Occ. Nursing Orderly, ESIC Medical College Hospital, Sanathnagar. HYDERABAD - 500038. Union of India, Represented by the Principal Secretary, Ministry of Labour and Employment, Govt. of lndia, Shramshakti Bhavan, New Delhi. .-.PETITIONERS Petition under Article 226 of tie Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a writ or order more particularly one in the nature of writ of ...RESPONDENTS . . :,.l.-r':',:, ''-9''-i - j Certiorari, call for the records relating and connected to the impugned order in O.A. No. 18 of 2020, dated 06.03.2024, passed by the Hon'ble Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench, and set asid,: the same as illegal, arbitrary and cc,ntrary to the law. IA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section 15'1 CPC praying that in thr' circumstances stated in the affidavit'iled in support of the petition, the High Cc,url may be pleased to grant stay of all further proceedings against impugned r:,rder rn O.A.No. 1B of 2020 dated 06-03-2024 passed by the Hon'ble Central l,dministrative Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench, during the pedency of this Writ Petitir;n before this Hon'ble Court, otherwise the applicant shall suffer irreparable loss ;rnd hardship. Counsel for the Petitioners: SRI c.PAVAN KUMAR, SC FOR ESIC Counsel for the Respondent No.l: SRI B.PAVAN KUMAR REP. FOR SRI A.RAGHU KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent No.2: SRI GADI PRAVEEN KUMAR, DEPUTY SOLICITOR GENERIAL OF INDIA The Court made the following: COMMON ORDER tt) fr,t THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND I(UMAR SHAVILI AND THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA W.P.Nos.16726 16764 and 16781 of2o25 COMMON ORDER: (Per lhe Hon'ble Si ,lustice Abhnand Kumar Shauiti) All these Writ Petitions are being disposed of by way of a common order since the issue raised in these Writ petitions is one and the same.

2. W.P.No.16726 of 2025 is filed against the order passed in O.A.No.4 of 2O2O; W.P.No. 16764 of 2O2S is filed against order passed ln O.A.No. 19 of 2O2O; W.p.No. 16781 of 2O2S is filed against the order passed in O.A.No. 1g of 2O20, dated 06.O3.2025 by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench, Hyderabad (for short, ,the Tribunal,).

3. Heard Sri G. Pavan Kumar, learned Standing Counsel for ESIC appearing for the petitioners and Sri B. pavan Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.1 in all the Writ Petitions.

4. For the sake of convenience, the facts in W.p.No.16764 of 2025 are hereunder discussed. ,! l: 1i I I I i t t t ' I I I I , 2 /\t{S,J & ETD,.I ,\p I672(i 2025 & l)at.h

5. Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the petitioners had contended that respondent No.l was appointed as Nursing Orderly in the Employees' Stilte Insurance Corporation (ESIC)on 07.O5.2OO9, after corrpletion of his probatior-r. Horvever, the petitioners have direc:ted respoudent No.1 to submit his original Transfer Certifica'l e and Progress Certificat-e. Accordingly, respondent No.1 has submitted the Transfer Certificate on 06.03.2O14. On scrutinv of the said certificate, it has come to the notice of the disciplinary authorit5, that Transfer Certificate and other i.ocuments were found to be fake and false. Accordingly, a Sho'v Cause Notice was isslred. Respondent No.1 has submittt:'d his detailed explanation denying the charges. Not being surtisfied with the explanation submitted by respondent No. 1, t he disciplinary authorit\/ has initrated disciplinary proceedings by issuing a charge nlemo on 29.O1.2016, framing a singl) charge. Later, the trnquiry Officer was appointed to conduct the discipiinary enquiry and the Enquiry Officer has submitted an Enqtrir-v report on 16.08.2016 holding tl-rat the charge against :respondent No.l was not proved. Strbseqr.rently, on

07.lO.2Ct17, the disciplinary authority has is;sued a dissent note to respondent No.1 and respondent No' t has submitted 3 AKS,J & ETD,J \\,p-16726 2025 & batch an explanation on 2o.ll.2ol7. Thereafter, the disciplinary. authority has imposed a punishment of removal from service on 18.12.2017.

6. Challenging the order of removal, respondent No.1 has preferred an appeal before the appellate authority on 08.01.2018, contending that the Dean/disciplinary authorit5r, who has initiated the disciplinaqr proceedings was not the competent authority and that the Regional Joint Director was the competent authority. Vlde order, dated O5.O9.2019, the appellate authority was pleased to a-llow, the appeal by setting aside the order of removai on the ground that the Dean/ disciplinary authority is not the competent authority and remitted the matter to the disciplinary authority for initiating the disciplinary proceedings from the stage u,here it has been vitiated. pursuant to the order passed by the appellate authority, respondent No.1 was reinstated into service on 18.09.2O19. After examining the charge memo and other relevant evidence, the disciplinary authority has dropped the disciplinary proceedings against respondent No.1 vide proceedings, dated 25.09.2O2O, as there u,as no sufficient material to prove the charge. 4 ,\I(S,.I & ETD,J ,\Tr 167:l() 2025 & balch

7. Learned Standing Counsel for the petitio;eers had further contended that respondent No.1 was <.,ontending that out of enrployment period from the date of renroval should be treated eLs 'spent on duty'. While the matter ivas sti11 under consideriltion, respondent No. t has approach::d ther Tribunal by filing O.A.No. 19 of 2O2O., seeking service irenefits for out of emplo.yment period from 18.12.2OI7 ti1l hir,; reinstatement into service i.e., on 18.09.20 19. Admittedly, :he disciplinary proceedir-rgs were later dropped. Vide order, dated

06.03.2A24, the Tribunal was pleased to z:,11ou, the O.A., directing that the out of employment period from 18.12.2017 to 18.09.2019 be treated as 'spent on duty', without appreciating any of the contentions raised by :.he petitioners.

8. Lezrned Standing Counsel had further contendecl that the Trib unal failed to appreciate that respo ndent No. I did not worl.: during the period from 18.12.2017 to 18.09.2019. hence, the question of treating the said period as 'spent on clutv' rvould not arise. The principle of 'nc .,r,ork no pay' u,ould apply and respondent No.l is not e ntitled for any service oenefits for out of employment period. 'Iherefore, appropriatc orders be passed in the Writ Pet.ition by setting

1.- V 5 AI(S,J & ETD,J \p 16726 2025 & batch aside the order, dated 06.03.2024 passed in O.A.No.19 of 2O2O by the Tribunal and allow the Writ Petition.

9. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No. t had contended that the Tribunal has rightly allowed the O.A. in lavour of respondent No. 1, as admittedl_v, the disciplinary proceedings were dropped. When once lhe disciplinary proceedings are dropped, the entire period from the date of removal (18.12.2017) to the date of reinstatement (18.O9.2019) has to be treated as 'spent on duty'. Admittedly, in the instant case, though the Enquiry Officer has submitted the report holding that the charge as not proved, the Dean, who is acting as a disciplinary authority has issued a dissent note and imposed a major punishment of removal. The appellate authority has considered a1l these aspects and rightly allowed the appeal by setting aside the order of removal and remitted the matter to the disciplinary authority to start the enquiry from the stage where it has been vitiated. The disciplinary authority, in its wisdom, dropped the disciplinary proceedings uide proceedings, dated

25.O9.2O2O. When once the disciplinary proceedings initiated against respondent No.1 are dropped, the question of 6 ,\I(S.J 8, DTD,.J rp l672il 2025 & batclr :1.:= denving the service benefits for out of employment period vvould not arise. Therefore, there are no merits in the Writ Petitions and same are liable to be dismissed

10. This Court, having considercd the sub;nissions rrrade by both the parties, is of the view that the Trib'unal r.r,as justified in allow,ing the O.A. in favour 6f ls1,,ponclent No.1. Admittedly, the disciplin26, proceedings initiated against respondent No.1 s,ere dropped b1, the discipltnarv authority vide prc,ceedings, dated 25.O9.2O2O. Wh::n once the disciplineLrv proceedings are <lropped, respordent No.1 is entitled lo all service bcnelits, including back rvages. A perusal of F. R.54 (2) also makes it clear t hat, when an employee q,ho has been dismissed, removed cr cornpulsorily retired is reinstated and exonerated of the char ges, they shall be paid tl-re full pav and allou,ances to r.r'rich they are entitled, had he not been dismissed, removed or compulsorilv retired or suspended prior to s:-rch dismissal, removal or compulsory retirement, as the case may be. Since , the disciplinary proceedings initrated against responder-rt No. 1 u,ere dropped by the discipli:-rary authority in the ins;tant case, the question of denying Lracku.ages and l ; l I I i I i 7 AKS,J & ETD,J \t,p 16726-2025 & batch service benefits for out of employment period would not arise. Hence, the Tribunal was justified 1n allowing the subject O.A. in favour of respondent No. 1. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the erders passed by the Tribunal.

11. With the above observations, all the Writ Petitions are dismissed. No order as to costs L2. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending if anv, shall stand closed. //TRUE COPY// SD/- T.JAYASREE DEPUWRE9ITrRAR ./ sEcnMNt#FtcER \l One CC to SRI G PAVAN KUMAR, SC FOR ESIC [OPUC] One CC to SRI A.RAGHU KUMAR, Advocate [OPUC] One CC to SRI GADI PRAVEEN KUMAR, DEPUTY SOLICITOR GENERIAL SFlNOf n, Uigii Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad [OPUC] Two CD Copies e To, 1 2 3 4 BS TKS t ,l HIGH COURT DATED: 18l0il20?s .,a:' tl . '-\ '' ,,.''.' . ,: . , r- .)r \ , -j:-- I.. :\ t r,'\ 1 E SEP 2025 .) ,) ?, D COMMON ORDER WP.Nos.l6726,16764 and 16781 of ZOZ1 DISMISSING ALL THE WRIT PETITIONS, WITHOUT COSTS a 9 \ o