IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION NO : 36705 of 1998 Between: S.Subrahmanyam S/o Potharaju R/o H.No.1/768, Saradanagar, Machilipatnam , Krishan District ..... PETITIONER AND The AP. Dairy Development Co-Operative Federation Ltd., Rep. by its Managing Director, Lalapet, Hyderabad .....RESPONDENT Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue a writ or direction preferably Writ of Mandamus declaring the order of the removal vide letter No.13614, Admn.IV/DC 2/82 dt. 31/12/1985 and also order of the Appellate authority issued by the respondent in the proceedings No.13614/Admn.III/C2/82 Vol.III; DT. 24/08/98 as illegal, arbitrary and violative of principles of natural justice and consequently direct the respondent to reinstate the petitioner with all back wages and all consequential benefits and pass such other order or further orders as this Hon’ble Court deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner:SRI.KOWTURU VINAYA KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent: SRI.M.DILIP RAO, SC for APSRTC. The Court made the following : ORDER: Aggrieved by the order of the appellate authority dated 24.08.1998 whereby the order of the disciplinary authority, imposing the punishment of removal from service on the petitioner herein, was confirmed as also the direction to the petitioner to remit the balance of Rs.99,317.65 ps. within fifteen days, the present writ petition is filed. 2. The said order of the appellate authority dated 24.08.1998 is questioned on four grounds i.e., (1) that the petitioner was not in a position to participate in the enquiry on account of the meager subsistence allowance paid to him and as such the enquiry proceedings are vitiated; (2) six other employees against whom the same charges were levelled were let off by imposition of a minor penalties and reinstated into service; (3) the enquiry officer and the disciplinary authority were biased against the petitioner; and (4) that though the petitioner raised 18 grounds in his appeal the appellate authority had failed to consider all the contentions. 3. Insofar as the plea of bias is concerned, in the absence of either the enquiry officer or the disciplinary authority, being arrayed as a party respondent eo-nominee in these proceedings, the plea of bias cannot be examined. (STATE OF BIHAR v P.P.SHARMA[1]). 4. It is necessary to note that this Court, in its order in WP.No.348 of 1986 dated 08.12.1988 and WP.No.9023 of 1989 dated 10.04.1998, had directed the appellate authority to consider the appeal and record a finding on merits. As such, it is only the validity of the order of the appellate authority which necessitates examination. 5. The appellate authority has passed an elaborate order and has dealt with each of the charges in great detail and it is only, thereafter, that the order of the disciplinary authority was confirmed. Admittedly, the enquiry was held during the period August, 1982 to November, 1983. A perusal of the grounds of appeal would show that non- payment of subsistence allowance is claimed for the period from 01.11.1985 to 31.12.1985 much after the enquiry proceedings were completed. It cannot, therefore, be said that failure on the part of the appellant to participate in the enquiry was on account of non-payment of subsistence allowance. 6. On the question of the six other employees being absolved of the charges, it is necessary to note that no material has been placed before this Court to show what was the nature of the charges levelled against them and under what circumstances the enquiry officer had held them not guilty of the charge. Even if the charges were common that does not, by itself, necessitate all the persons charged of misconduct being punished and it is only when the acts of misconduct are proved against the employees concerned can they be held guilty of the charges and imposed punishment. Since the enquiry reports of all the other six employees are not placed before this Court it is not possible to record a finding whether they were also held guilty of the charge, despite which a lenient view was taken. The charges held established against the petitioner was of misappropriation of 2,729 kgs. of Ghee for a value of Rs.1,00,575/-. As such this contention also necessitates rejection. 7. It is well settled that the order of the appellate authority has merely to reveal due application of mind and, in cases where it concurs with the findings of the enquiry officer and the order of the disciplinary authority, it would suffice if some reasons are assigned, which indicates application of mind by the appellate authority to the appeal raised before it by the delinquent employee. That does not mean that each and every ground has to be considered in detail and even irrelevant grounds taken note of. A perusal of the order of the appellate authority would show that it is only after a detailed consideration of the material evidence on record was the order of the disciplinary authority, holding the petitioner guilty of the charges and imposing on him the punishment of removal from service, confirmed. It cannot be said that for the proved charge of misappropriation of Ghee worth more than Rs.1,00,000/-, the punishment of removal from service and recovery of the said amount is disproportionate. 8. Viewed from any angle, the order of punishment does not necessitate interference. The writ petition fails and is, accordingly, dismissed. _______________________ (RAMESH RANGANATHAN,J) 18th February, 2008 v v To 1. The Manger, AP. Dairy Development Co-Operative Federation Ltd., Lalapet, Hyderabad. 2. 2 C.D. copies [1] AIR 1991 SC 1260