HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.G.SHANKAR Writ Petition Nos.18153 and 23726 of 2010 Date: 09-10-2013 W.P.No.18153 of 2010: Between B.Vigneshwar Rao … Petitioner and President, Guntur District Cooperative Central Bank Limited (GDCC Bank Ltd.), 2/3, Brodipeta, NTR Sahakar Bhavan, Guntur District; and another … Respondents W.P.No.23726 of 2010: Between B.Vigneshwar Rao … Petitioner and President, Guntur District Cooperative Central Bank Limited (GDCC Bank Ltd.), 2/3, Brodipeta, NTR Sahakar Bhavan, Guntur District; and another … Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.G.SHANKAR Writ Petition Nos.18153 and 23726 of 2010 Common Order: These two writ petitions are disposed of through this common order as the petitioner and the respondents are common in both the writ petitions. In both the cases, the petitioner seeks for a Writ of mandamus. In the former writ petition, he seeks for a Writ of mandamus to declare the action of the respondents in imposing more than one punishment through proceedings dated 22-12-2007 as illegal, to set aside the order treating the suspension period as loss of pay in view of Section 47 of the Andhra Pradesh Shops and Establishments Act, 1988 and for consequential reliefs. In the latter writ petition, he sought for a Writ of mandamus seeking for a declaration that the award settlement was illegal and to direct the respondents not to dismiss the petitioner from service. 2. The petitioner joined the 1st respondent as a Messenger in 1982. In 1999, he was promoted as a Staff Assistant. On the basis of financial irregularity of granting double loan, the petitioner was placed under suspension with effect from 17-8-2006. In the meanwhile, a criminal case was initiated against him in C.C.No.81 of 2008 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Chilakaluripet. About 6 months after the petitioner was placed under suspension, charge memo was issued on 06-02-2007 consisting of 8 charges. The petitioner offered his explanation to the charge memo on 26-02-2007. He claimed that he was a Supervisor, that he recommends the loan and that it is the Manager who verifies the details of the loan including whether a loan was already sanctioned or otherwise. However, domestic enquiry was initiated against the petitioner on 31-7-2007. On 22-12-2007, impugned proceedings in the first case were issued by the 1st respondent demoting the petitioner to his original post of recruitment as a Messenger, refixing the salary of the petitioner at the minimum of the post of the Messenger and treating the period of suspension from 17-8-2006 till the date of joining as loss of pay. The amount received by the petitioner towards subsistence allowance was also ordered to be recovered. 2nd Show Cause Notice was not issued regarding the quantum of punishment to be inflicted against the petitioner before proceedings dated 22-12- 2007 were issued. 3. The petitioner submitted an appeal to the Board of Management. The Board of Management ordered the petitioner to join duty as a Staff Assistant. Thus, the punishment of reversion to the initial cadre was set aside. However, the other punishments remained in force. The petitioner consequently laid the 2nd writ petition. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the punishment imposed by the 1st respondent and subsequently by the Board of Management is disproportionate, unjust and is liable to be set aside. 4. The learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, contended that both the writ petitions are liable to be dismissed in limine. The relief sought for in the 2nd writ petition is for a direction to the respondents not to dismiss the petitioner from service. Admittedly, the petitioner has been working as a Staff Assistant. It is contended by the learned counsel for the respondents that as the petitioner was not dismissed from service, the 2nd writ petition becomes infructuous and is liable to be dismissed. 5. Regarding the 1st writ petition, the learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the impugned order dated 22-12-2007 merged with the order of the Board of Management directing the petitioner to join as Staff Assistant once again. Regarding the main prayer, his contention is that when the petitioner was found to have misconducted himself in respect of financial irregularity of misappropriation, he would not be entitled to any reliefs. I consider that these two writ petitions can be disposed of regarding the punishment imposed by the Board of Management as both sides addressed the case on merits apart from contending about the maintainability of the writ petition. 6. The 1st contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that more than one punishment cannot be imposed in respect of anyone charge. It would appear that Rule (viii) of the Disciplinary Proceedings would envisage that an employee who is found guilty of misconduct shall not be awarded more than one punishment in respect of one charge. Admittedly, the petitioner was imposed the penalty of reversion, placing in the minimum time scale, treating the period of suspension as loss of pay and recovery of the subsistence allowance paid during the period of suspension. It certainly is a multiple penalty. It may be noticed that there are as many as 8 charges. However, all the charges more or less are founded on the charge of misappropriation of amounts by collecting monies from the loanees and not accounting the same to the bank. The learned counsel for the petitioner admitted that orders were passed subsequently directing the petitioner to deposit the loan amounts in respect of which, he allegedly defrauded and that the petitioner has repaid the same. This contention has been disputed by the learned counsel for the respondents contending that he was not aware about the repayment of the same by the petitioner. At any rate, if the petitioner has not repaid the loan amounts, he is bound to do so on account of directions from the bank. 7. The question is whether the penalty imposed is disproportionate or otherwise. I am afraid that the penalty is so severe that the Appellate Authority itself thought it appropriate to direct the petitioner to join as Staff Assistant rather than as a Messenger. I therefore consider that the punishment deserves to be modified. 8. The learned counsel for the petitioner also submitted that under Section 47 of the Andhra Pradesh Shops and Establishments Act, 1988, if the enquiry is not completed within one year from the date of suspension, the suspended employee should be entitled to full wages and such period should be liable to be treated as in service. In view of the same, I accept the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner shall be deemed to be in service during the entire period of suspension. The same therefore does not deserve to be treated as period of leave on loss of pay. The petitioner shall be entitled to treat the period of suspension as period on duty for the purpose of continuity of service but not for the purpose of salary. 9. It may be noticed that the petitioner was convicted by the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Chilakaluripet, in C.C.No.81 of 2008 through judgment dated 16-8-2010. However, admittedly, the petitioner was acquitted in the appeal preferred by him. In this background, I consider that the penalties imposed against the petitioner are severe and are liable to be set aside. Accordingly, the finding of the Enquiry Officer that the petitioner is guilty of misconduct is confirmed but the penalty is modified to withholding of two annual increments with cumulative effect. The petitioner is entitled to continuity of service and attendant benefits but is not entitled to back wages. The petitioner is also entitled to receive subsistence allowance during the period of suspension. If the amounts so received by the petitioner have not been refunded by the petitioner to the respondents so far, he need not refund the same. However, if the money had already been refunded by the petitioner to the respondents, he shall not be entitled to return of the same. With these observations, both the writ petitions are disposed of. No costs. ___________________ K.G.SHANKAR, J. 09th October, 2013. Ak HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.G.SHANKAR Writ Petition Nos.18153 and 23726 of 2010 (Common Order) 09th October, 2013. (Ak)