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 rnay be pleased to pass an order or direction more pa(icularly in the nature of mandgmus calling for the records pgrtaining to the charge sheet No 21516lPWlAPllC/E3/98, dated 4-1- 1999, and set aside the punishment of stoppage of one lncrement with cumulative effect and consequently direct the rgspohdent to grant all the incidental and consequential benefits to the petitioner and to pass such qther or olderq fu(fler orders as it de'ems just and proper in the circumstanQes of the cBSe or else the petitioner hergin will suffer irreparable loss and injury I Counsel for the Petitioners: SRl. P BHASKAR Counsel for the Respondents: SRI ryt SRIKANTH REDDY (SC FOB fGllc) The Court made the following: ORDER THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE P.SREE SUDHA WRIT PETITION No.L792O of 2OO5 ORDER: This u,rit petition is filed by the petitioner requesting the Court to cail for the records pertaining to the charge sheet No.21516i PW lAPIIC]E3lgS, dated 04.01.1999 and set aside the punishment of stoppage of one increment with cumulative effect and consequently to direct the respondents to grant all the incidr.ntal and consequential benefits to the petitioner.

2. Learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Counsel for respondents are present. Heard arguments of both sides.

3. Letrrned Counsel for the petitioner stated that petitioner joined in the respondent Corporation as an Accounts Clerk in the year 1982. During the year 1998, a memo was issued against him with five charges uide Memo No.2156/Pw/APIIC/E3/98, dated 18.04.1998. Apart from the post of Accountant, he was holding a fult additional charge of Senior Assistant, at the Zonal Office, Chandulal Baradari. As a result of the full additional charge of the Senior Assistant, he u,as in charge of Industrial Estate, Chandulal Baradari, IDA, Kottur and Industrial Housing Complex, Chandula,t Baradari, I 2 which was having heavy work load. The charge made against him is that there was delay of 5 days to 5 months in remittance of total amount of Rs.8O8/ - He also stated that petitioner received an amount of Rs.i0,000/- thrqugh cheque on O1.09.i995 and the same was deposited in the Bank on the same day, but receipt was not issued due to work pressure and oversight. As per Clause A1.1 of Zonal Accounts Manual, for every collection made, there should be a proper receipt issued to the party from whom the amount is collected. [t was a bona fide mistake and there was no willful negligence on the part of the petitioner. Except charge No. 1, all other charges i.e., charges No.2 to 5 are dropped by Disciplinary Authority after considering the explanation submitted by the petitioner and imposed penalry of stoppage of one increment with cumulative effect, against which he preferred the present writ petition.

4. In the counter filed by the respondents, they stated that petitioner while working as Senior Accountant in the erstwhile Chandulal Baradari Zone was also the in-charge of maintenance of cash book for Cash Book Non-operative Collection Account. During inspection and veril-rcation of cash book for the period from 29.12.1997 to 01.02.1998 by the internal audit, certain irregularities in the transactions of cash and cheques were noticed and lramed Iive charges against the petitioner. Out of five charges, except Charge No.1, all other charges were dropped. For delay in remittance of Rs.808/- in the Bank ranged between 5 days to 5 months, they imposed penalty of stoppage of one increment with cumulative effect as it amounts to temporary misappropriation of the cash. In fact, petitioner admitted the said charge. After considering the explanation of I the petitioner, proper punishment was imposed upon him. In the appeal also they reviewed his request and observed that there was no necessity for revising the punishment as he rcquircs financial discipline and the punishmcnt imposed upon him is reasonable and was imposed alter lollowing due procedure. Therefore, requested the Court to clismiss the present writ petition.

5. Learned Counsel for respondents lurther rehcd upon the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of tl.p.State Road Transport Corporation Vs,Vinod. Kuma\t in which it was held as foilows: , "As stated in tte preceding poragraphs, the respond.ent had confined his case onlg to the conclusions reiched_ bg the enquiry officer as uell as the quantum of punishmeni. TLLere.fore, since the respondent had not challenged. the correctness, legalitg or ualiditg of the inquiry conducted., it ' lzooty I scc t rs I .+ uas not open to tLrc Labour Court to go into the findings recorded bg the enquiry fficer regarding the misconduct committed bg the respondent. This Court in a number of judgments has hEld that the punishment of remoual/ dismissal is the appropiate punishment for an emplogee found guiltg of misappropriotion of funds; and the courts should be reluctant to reduce the punishment on misplaced sgmpathg for a utorkman. Tha| there is nothing urong in tte employer losing confidence or faith in such an emplogee and anaarding punishment of dismissal. That, in such cases, there is no place for generosity or misplaced sgmpathy on the part of the judicial forums ond interking with the quantum of punishment. Without burdening the judgment utith all the judgments of this Court on this point, ue maA onlg refer to a recent judgment in Diuisional Controller, N.E.K.R.T.C. u. H. Amaresh [(2006) 6 SCC 187 : 2006 SCC OAg 12901 uherein this Court, after taking into account the earlier decisions, held in para 18 as under: 18. In tLte tnstant case, the misappropiation of the funds bg the delinquent emplogee uas onlg Rs 360.95. Thb Court has considered the punishment that mag be owarded to the delinquent employees u.tho misappropriated the funds of the Corporatiort and the factors to be considered. This Court in a catena of judgments held that the loss of confidence is the primary factor and not the amount of moneg misappropiated and thot the sgmpathy or generositg cannot be a factor uthich is impennissible in law. WLen an emplogee is found guiltg oJ' pilftrage or of misappropiating the Corporation's funds, tLrere is nothing u)rong in the Corporatiott losing confrdence or faith in such an emplogee and auarding punishment of dismissal. In such cases, ttwre is no place for generosity or misplaced sgmpathg on the part of the judicial forums and interfeing therefore uith the quontum of punishment. The judgment in Karnataka SRIC u. B.S. Hullikatti (2001) 2 SCC 574 : 2001 SCC (L&S) 4691 utas also relied on in this judgment among others. Examination of the passengers of tlrc uehicle from rohom the said sum u)as collected was also not essential. In our uieu.t, possession of the said excess sum of money on the part of the respondent, a fact proued, i.s itself a misconduct and hence the Labour Court and tle leatned Judges of the High Court I 5 misdirected themselues in insisting on the euidence of the passengers which is utholly not essential. This apart, the respondent did not haue any expla natiorz for hauing corried tte said excess antount. ?"his omission tuas sufficient to hokl him guilty. This act tDas so grossly negligent that the respondent was not fit to be retained as a con.cluctor because such action or inaction of his tuas bound to result in financial loss to the oppellant inespectiue of tlrc quantum. "

6. Considering the fact that petitioner was in-charge of other post, this Court finds that non-remittance of amount of Rs.8O8/- for a period of 5 days to 5 months cannot be considerccl as a grave mistake and also finds that it is just and rcasonable to modify the penalty of stoppage of one increment with cumulative effect to the stoppage of one incremcnt without cumulative effect.

7. In tl-re result, the present writ petition is partl-y allowed by modifying the penalty of stoppage of one increment with cumulative eifect to the stoppage of one increment without cumulative effect. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any., shall stand closed. That Rule Nisi has been made absolute as above' Witness the Hon'ble the Acting Chief Justice SUJOY PAUL' on this Friday Twenty f irst oay ifi"fvrarch Two Thousand And Twenty Five 'The \ //TRUE COPY// SD/-K. AMMAJI w REGISTRAR SECfION OFFIQEB , \ To, 1 I THE VICE CHAIRMAN ANd Thq $/IANAgiNg r,irE"ii,iitrie borporaticin Ltd , 6th Floor, P riyaerabbo r, AP lndustriql Di arishrarna Bhavan, heerabaEh, Cd 2 The Executive officer, AP lndqstrial lnfrastrueture corporatron Ltd', 6th Floor' Parishrgma Bhavan, Basheerabagh, llyQgrabad The Zorlal Manager, AP lnduslriql lnfra$turcture Coiporatiqn Lld, Patancheru, Medak Ditricl. One CC to SRl. P BHASKAR Advocate IOPUCI one CQ to $Rl. M ERIKANTH REDDY ($c FoR TGIIC) toPUCI Two QD Copies J 4 5 6 KKS I}S i I HIGH COURT DATED:21 103t2025 I I I 1HE S 14 ( 2 z nny znzs a,r ,i a SoatCut o ORDER WP.No.17920 o12005 ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS d I