Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 942 (AP)

Telugu Akademi v. P. Raghava Reddy

2014-07-28

CHALLA KODANDA RAM, L.N.REDDY

body2014
JUDGMENT L. Narasimha Reddy, J. 1. This writ appeal is filed against the order, dated 22.04.2014 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P. No. 9351 of 2014. 2. The respondent joined the service of the appellant in its Regional Center at Tirupati in the year 1993 as a Junior Assistant and was promoted as Senior Assistant in June 2005. On administrative grounds, he was transferred to the Regional Center at Visakhapatnam. He was placed under suspension through order, dated 18.02.2008 passed by the Director of the Academy on the allegations of financial irregularities. The order of suspension was challenged in W.P. No. 3872 of 2008 and it was allowed on 31.10.2008. W.A. No. 1596 of 2009 filed against it by the appellant was dismissed on 13.11.2009. 3. The respondent was served with a charge sheet, dated 27.07.2009. He submitted explanation, dated 22.12.2009. Not satisfied with the same, the appellant issued a memo, proposing the punishment of dismissal. W.P. No. 28719 of 2009 was filed against it. An interim order was passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court and the disciplinary proceedings are stayed even as of now. 4. The appellant submitted a complaint against the respondent alleging certain criminal acts. The same gave raise to C.C. No. 20 of 2009 on the file of the III Judicial First Class Magistrate, Tirupati. The Criminal Court convicted the respondent and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for two years and to pay fine of Rs. 10,000/-. Aggrieved by that, the respondent filed Criminal Appeal No. 16 of 2014 in the Court of V Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tirupati. In Criminal M.P. No. 30 of 2014, the lower appellate Court suspended not only the sentence but also the conviction ordered in C.C. No. 20 of 2009. Despite the same, the appellant passed an order dated 22.02.2014 removing the appellant from service. Challenging the same, the respondent filed W.P. No. 9351 of 2014. 5. According to the respondent, the very order of removal was passed based on the conviction ordered by the trial Court and once the conviction and sentence ordered by the trial Court was suspended by the lower appellate Court, there was no basis to continue the order of dismissal from service. The writ petition was opposed by the appellant. 5. According to the respondent, the very order of removal was passed based on the conviction ordered by the trial Court and once the conviction and sentence ordered by the trial Court was suspended by the lower appellate Court, there was no basis to continue the order of dismissal from service. The writ petition was opposed by the appellant. According to them, criminal appeal is very much pending and apart from that, the disciplinary proceedings were stalled at the instance of the respondent and there was no basis to insist on withdrawal of the order of removal. Through the order under appeal, the learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition. 6. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the respondent. 7. On noticing certain financial irregularities on the part of the respondent, the appellants initiated disciplinary proceedings on the one hand and submitted the complaint before the concerned police station on the other hand. The disciplinary proceedings could not progress on account of the interim order passed in W.P. No. 28719 of 2009 filed by the respondent. The Criminal Court however proceeded with the matter and convicted and sentenced the respondent. As provided for under the relevant Service Regulations, the appellant dismissed the respondent from service through order, dated 22.02.2014 based upon the conviction. 8. It is no doubt true that the respondent filed an appeal and the lower appellate Court passed an order suspending not only the sentence, but also the conviction. On that basis, the respondent wanted the order of dismissal to be withdrawn. The occasion to withdraw an order of punishment as a result of the suspension of a sentence and conviction would arise, if only there did not exist any other basis for the employer. It has already been mentioned that the disciplinary proceedings on the one hand and criminal proceedings on the other hand were initiated. Even where an employee is acquitted in criminal cases, the disciplinary proceedings do not get terminated. Those proceedings have to be taken to the logical end in accordance with law. Instances are not lacking where despite the acquittal in a criminal case, an employee is inflicted the punishment as a result of proof of charges in the disciplinary proceedings. 9. Even where an employee is acquitted in criminal cases, the disciplinary proceedings do not get terminated. Those proceedings have to be taken to the logical end in accordance with law. Instances are not lacking where despite the acquittal in a criminal case, an employee is inflicted the punishment as a result of proof of charges in the disciplinary proceedings. 9. It is brought to the notice of this Court that the respondent filed Criminal Miscellaneous Petition, feeling aggrieved by the order passed by the lower appellate Court suspending conviction and sentence. A specific request was made before the learned Single Judge that a Criminal M.P. is being filed and the matter may be deferred for some time. However that request was not acceded to. 10. Even where the learned Single Judge was of the view that the order of suspension passed by the lower appellate Court warranted reconsideration of the order of dismissal, a direction in that behalf ought to have been given. However, allowing the writ petition straight away and setting aside the order of dismissal was not justified in the facts and circumstances of the case. 11. We therefore allow the writ appeal and set aside the order under appeal. The writ petition is disposed of directing that the appellant shall pass appropriate orders on the representation made by the respondent duly taking into account the entire matter pertaining to him and pass appropriate orders within period of four weeks from today. 12. The miscellaneous petition filed in this appeal shall also stand disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.