THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SHRI MADAN B. LOKUR AND THE HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED WRIT APPEAL NO.938 OF 2011 DATED:15.11.2011 Between: The Principal Srikalahasteeswara Institute of Technology Srikalahasti Chittoor District and another … Appellants And G. Jayapal Reddy … Respondent THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SHRI MADAN B. LOKUR AND THE HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED WRIT APPEAL NO.938 OF 2011 JUDGMENT: (per the Hon’ble the Chief Justice Shri Madan B. Lokur) The appellants are aggrieved by an order dt.2.9.2010 passed by a learned single Judge in W.P. No.20987 of 2007. 2. The respondent had taken leave for half-a-day on 3.3.2003 and he had also applied for leave on 12.3.2003 for one day. The leave was sanctioned. 3. When the respondent came back to his office on 13.3.2003 instead of signing in the column of that date, he signed in the column of 12.3.2003. A memorandum was issued to him on 12.9.2003 seeking his explanation for this. 4. The respondent gave his explanation stating that it was a mistake on his part and that he may be pardoned for that mistake. 5. Notwithstanding this, the appellants decided to hold an enquiry against the respondent and on the conclusion of the enquiry, he was found guilty and removed from service by order dt.5.6.2004. 6. In the meanwhile, the respondent had filed a writ petition before this Court being W.P. No.24600 of 2003 challenging the inquiry proceedings. 7. During the pendency of the writ petition, the appellants held another departmental enquiry against the respondent. In the second departmental enquiry, the Enquiry Officer was of the opinion that the allegations against the respondent were very minor and trivial and did not require any drastic action to be taken against him. 8. Disregarding the contents of the second enquiry report, the respondent was removed from service as mentioned above. 9. Against the order of removal, the respondent preferred a writ petition, which was allowed, giving rise to the present appeal. 10. The learned single Judge allowed the writ petition on the ground that the first enquiry was conducted without hearing the respondent and that the second enquiry was not even taken into consideration while imposing the punishment of removal from service. The learned single Judge was of the view that ordinarily the matter ought to be remanded back for reconsideration, but on the facts of this case, it would be appropriate to give a quietus to the litigation rather than remitting the matter back to the appellants for reconsideration. The learned single Judge was also of the opinion that the punishment of stoppage of one increment without cumulative effect would be just and proper on the facts and in the circumstances of the case. This order was passed by the learned single Judge while directing reinstatement of the respondent. 11. The appellant appears to have filed a review petition being review W.P.M.P. No.2522 of 2011 but that was dismissed by the learned single Judge by order dt.14.2.2011. 12. In any event, the present appeal is directed only against the order passed by the learned single Judge on 2.9.2010 in the writ petition. 13. It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellants that the respondent was appointed on a temporary basis. He has drawn our attention to the counter affidavit filed before the learned single Judge which, however, shows that the respondent was appointed on a contract basis. It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellants that the learned single Judge proceeded on the basis that the respondent was a regular employee and he is entitled to increments. He says that this is not so and in this context a reference has been made to the counter affidavit. 14. We find from a reading of the counter affidavit that even though the respondent was appointed on consolidated pay, that pay was increased from time to time from Rs.1,500/- per month to Rs.3,800/- per month. The appointment order of respondent is not on record and, given the above facts, we have no reason to accept the contention of the learned counsel for the appellants that the respondent was not entitled to any increments. 15. On the merits of the case, we find that since the learned single Judge has taken all the relevant facts into consideration, including the fact that the second enquiry report described the lapse as trivial and minor and that conclusion was not considered by the appellants and the fact that the respondent had admitted committing the mistake for which he sought pardon. Additionally, in our opinion also, the order of removal from service was too harsh a punishment to be imposed upon on the respondent. 16. We see no reason to interfere with the order passed by the learned single Judge. There is no merit in the writ appeal. 17. The writ appeal is accordingly dismissed. __________________ MADAN B. LOKUR, CJ ____________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J 15-11-2011 bnr