IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 17603 of 2008 Between: K.Goverdhan, S/o. Chennaiah, T.S.W., Kurnool Dairy, The Kurnool District Milk Producers, Mutually Aided-Cooperative Union Ltd., Nandyal, Kurnool district. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Managing Director, Milk Products Factory, The Kurnool District Milk Producers, Mutually Aided-Cooperative Union Ltd., Nandyal, Kurnool District. 2 The Chairman, The Kurnool District Milk Producers, Mutually Aided-Cooperative Union Ltd., Nandyal,Kurnool district. .....RESPONDENTS 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, order or direction more particularly a writ in the nature of Mandamus declaring the action of the Respondents No.1 in issuing the Proceedings Rc.No.19/E2/MD/03 dated 16.06.2008 in reverting petitioner as TSW and recovering the subsistence allowance paid, treating suspension period as Extra Ordinary Leave as illegal arbitrary, unjust, violative of principles of natural justice and unconstitutional and also contrary to certified standing orders and consequently declare the proceedings Rc.No.19/E2/MD/03 dated 16.06.2008 as null and void. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.MALIPEDDI SRINIVAS REDDY Counsel for the Respondents : M.DILIP RAO(SC FOR APDDCFL) The Court made the following : ORDER: The petitioner was initially appointed, as Time Scale Worker (TSW) in the Milk Products Factory of Kurnool District Milk Producers Mutually Aided Cooperative Union Limited, the first respondent herein. Subsequently, he was promoted as Junior Driver. He was entrusted with the duty of driving a milk Tanker, bearing No.AHT 1661. Alleging that the petitioner consumed alcohol on 18.06.2006 and slept in the tanker itself, the first respondent issued proceedings, dated 03.07.2006, reverting to the post of TSW, once for all, and transferring him to Rajampeta. The petitioner filed W.P.No.15081 of 2006. The writ petition was allowed on 31.08.2007, on the ground that neither any charge sheet was issued to the petitioner, nor any domestic enquiry was conducted, before the impugned order was passed. The impugned order was set aside and the respondents were directed to conduct enquiry into the allegations of misconduct against the petitioner. In compliance with the directions issued by this Court, the first respondent issued proceedings, dated 05.10.2007, framing four charges against the petitioner and placing him under suspension. The petitioner submitted his explanation and the enquiry was conducted. The Enquiry Officer submitted his repot on 05.03.2008, holding that the charges, framed against the petitioner, are proved. The first respondent accepted the same and issued a show cause notice, dated 31.03.2008. On considering the explanation, submitted by the petitioner on 11.04.2008, he issued proceedings dated 16.06.2008, reverting the petitioner to the post of TSW and directing that the period of suspension shall be treated as earned leave and further directing that the subsistence allowance paid to the petitioner shall be recovered. The said proceedings are challenged in this Writ Petition. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. The grievance of the petitioner is two fold, i.e., imposition of punishment of reversion to the post of TSW and recovery of the amount of subsistence allowance. Almost a similar punishment was imposed upon the petitioner vide proceedings, dated 03.07.2006, without conducting any departmental enquiry, or issuing any show cause notice. This Court allowed W.P.No.15081 of 2006, filed against the said proceedings. The respondents issued a charge sheet on 05.10.2007, wherein a reference was made to four charges, namely, 1. “Sri K.Govardhan, Jr.Driver, nandyal proceeded to Dornipadu, for bringing milk on Tanker No.AHT 1661 on 18.06.2006. After loading the milk at Dornipadu the driver conserved liquor and slept in the Tanker itself. This fact was informed to the Security over phone by the Manager, BN.M.C.C. Dornipadu; on receipt of the information one spare driver was sent to Dornipadu and brought the Tanker to Nandyal Factory. It isnot the only occasion when he misbehaved duly drunk. 2. On 10.03.2003 he dashed the Tanker to Tree at Duvvur Village fully drunk and caused damage to the Tanker. The repair charges amounted to Rs.1,44,550/-. 3. He broke the Head light of Tata Sumo used by the Managing Director on 06.01.2006. Which was stationed at the transport section with his hand with grudge fully drunk expressing his ill feeling against the Management. 4. He is one of the accused in the case of drawing excess diesel of 24 Ltrs., on 14.09.2005.” The petitioner submitted his explanation and domestic enquiry was conducted. All the charges were held proved. The petitioner is not able to point out any procedural irregularity in the enquiry. Having regard to the gravity of the charges, it cannot be said that the punishment of reversion to the post of TSW is excessive, or disproportionate. However, it needs to be observed that the reversion cannot be treated as permanent and he has to be treated as TSW, on par with others. So far as the direction for recovery of subsistence is concerned, it cannot be sustained in law. By its very nature, the subsistence allowance is the amount paid to an employee during the period of suspension to sustain himself and his family. Even where an employee is dismissed from service in disciplinary proceedings, the amount paid towards subsistence allowance cannot be recovered. In the instant case, the punishment imposed is, reversion. Therefore, there is no basis for the direction as to the recovery of subsistence allowance. Hence, the Writ Petition is partly allowed, upholding the impugned order, to the extent it imposed the punishment of reversion of the petitioner to the post of TSW. However, it is set aside to the extent it directed recovery of subsistence allowance from the petitioner. There shall be no order as to costs. ____________________ Dt.18.08.2008 L.NARASIMHA REDDY, J GJ