IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU WRIT PETITION NO : 10084 of 1999 Between: Hary Richard S/o. Abraham Philip Indian Airlines Limited Hyderabad, R/o. Secunderabad. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Indian Airlines Limited Rep. by its Chariman-cum-Managing Director 113, Rikab Gunj Road, New Delhi. 2 Indian Airlines Limited Rep. by its Director (Training) CTE, Hyderabad. 3 Indian Airlines Limited Rep. by its General Manager (Operations- Training) CTE, Hyderabad. 4 Manager (Personnel) Indian Airlines Limited, CTE, Hyderabad. .....RESPONDENT(S) 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 to issue any appropriate Writ, order or direction, preferably a Writ in the nature of Certiorari calling for the records relating to proceedings No.CTE/PER/HR/1997 dt. 6.5.98 issued by the 3rd Respondent as confirmed by the 2nd Respondent in proceedings No. CTE/PER/HR/ 120 dt. 22.1.99 and quash the same as being illegal, arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India as well as the principles of natural justice and consequently direct the Respondents to pay the monetary benefits to the petitioner in accordance with the Rules and to pass such further or other orders as this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.P.VENUGOPAL Counsel for the Respondent No.: MR.K.SRINIVASA MURTHY The Court made the following : ORAL ORDER: This writ petition is filed seeking Certiorari to call for the records relating to proceedings No.CTE/PER/HR/1997 dated 6.5.1998 issued by third respondent as confirmed by the second respondent vide proceedings No.CTE/PER/HR/120 dated 22.1.1999 and quash the same as arbitrary, illegal and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. It appears, petitioner while working as Office Superintendent in the office of General Manager (Training) CTE, Hyderabad, he was issued with charge sheet dated 31.12.1996 with the following charge: “That you were issued with a letter No.CTE/PER/0123/3874 dated 23rd December 1996 intimating your transfer from Personnel Section to Technical Section at C.T.E. Hyderabad, after the close of work on 24.12.1996. This letter was presented to you by Shri K.Vasanthkumaran, Emp.No.603538, Sr.Conf. Steno at 0930 hours on 24.12.96 in the presence of Shri B.Badrinarayana, Emp.No.623431, Bilingual Typist (Sr), when after seeing the contents of the letter, you did not take the delivery of the said letter and walked out of the Section without intimation to the Manager (Personnel). It was subsequently noticed that you filled in your leave card requesting for CL for 24.12.96. You, however, did not meet the Manager (Personnel), who is the authority to sanction leave in your case nor put your signature in the Attendance Register for 24.12.96. A further attempt was made to deliver the said letter through Security on 26.12.96 while you were entering into CTE premises at 0845 hours. Once again you refused to accept the letter and left the premises.” After conducting a detailed enquiry into the matter, while accepting the enquiry officer’s report, the disciplinary authority imposed punishment of reduction in basic pay by one incremental stage in timescale on cumulative basis. Aggrieved thereby, petitioner preferred appeal and the same was dismissed on 22.1.1999. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition is filed. There is no necessity of going into all the details. The learned counsel for petitoner strenuously contended that the enquiry was not conducted properly and absolutely there was no evidence to show that the petitioner was guilty of the charge and even assuming that the charge is proved, there is no necessity of imposing punishment of this nature, which is very innocuous one. It is suffice to notice that the charge made against the petitioner is trivial in nature. Even if it is proved, the major punishment of reduction in the timescale by one incremental stage on cumulative basis is shockingly disproportionate to that of the misconduct alleged. Therefore, to meet the ends of justice, I deem it appropriate to restrict the said punishment to five years from 6.5.1998, and thereafter the same shall be restored on notional basis till 31.12.2007 and from 1.1.2008 onwards, petitioner is entitled to all the benefits arising out of the same. The writ petition is allowed to the extent indicated above. No order as to costs, ____________ C.V.RAMULU, J Date: 24.3.2008 DA THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU W.P.No.10084 of 1999 24.3.2008