IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION NO : 8100 of 1999 Between: The Sanjay Rural Electric- Co-Operative Society Limited Rep. by its Managing Director, Sri Mohd. Sajjad Ahmed. Jogipet, Medak District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Sri K.Subramanya Sharma S/o K.Gopala Krishna Murthy, Gonguloor Village, Pulkar Mandal, Medak District. 2 Second Appellate Authority U/s 48(3) of A.P. Shops & Establishments Act, 1988 and Dy. Commissioner of Labour Ranga Reddy Zone, T.Anjaiah Bhavan, RTC. Cross Roads, Hyderabad-20 3 Authority Under Sec.48 of A.P. Shops & Establishment Act 1988, and Asst. Commissioner of Labour, Ranga Reddy Sangareddy, Medak District. .....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 call for the records from the 2nd Respondent and issue an appropirate Writ, Order or Direction particularly one in the nature of Writ of Certiorari, and quash the order passed by the 2nd Respondent in Second Appeal No.1/1997 dt. 10/02/1999 as illegal, unjust, contrary to law and perverse; and pass such other order or orders as deemed fit and proper under the circumstances of the case Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.A.K.JAYAPRAKASH RAO Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR LABOUR The Court made the following Order: Heard Sri A.K.Jaya Prakash Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner-society and Sri P.Raghavendra Reddy, learned counsel for the first respondent. Aggrieved by order of the Second Appellate Authority under the A.P. Shops and Establishments Act and Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Ranga Reddy Zone, dated 10-02-1999, the present writ petition is filed. The first respondent was hitherto working with the petitioner-society as an Assistant Lineman. He was placed under suspension on 06-05-1995 on the ground that he was involved in misappropriation of a sum of Rs.5,282/- by changing the name in PR.2962 dated 14-02-1995 from Mangali Sangaiah to S.Shivaiah, S/o Pentaiah in the Xerox copy of the permanent receipt. The Additional Divisional Engineer was appointed as the enquiry officer and, on the charge of misappropriation being held established, the services of the first respondent were terminated with effect from 01-06-1996. Aggrieved thereby, he preferred an appeal under Section 48 of the A.P.Shops and Establishments Act, 1988 (for short ‘the Act’) and the third respondent, without examining the matter on merits, held that the punishment imposed was grossly disproportionate to the alleged misconduct and ordered reinstatement with continuity of service and back wages. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner-society preferred a second appeal. The second appellate authority held that, though the first respondent had misappropriated the amount, he had later made good the amount. The second appellate authority held that since the charge of misappropriation was held established, the mere fact that the amount was made good later would not undo the earlier act of misappropriation. Even with regards the second charge of engaging others to discharge his duties, the second appellate authority held that the misconduct was established. However, the second appellate authority concurred with the observations of the first appellate authority that the punishment imposed was grossly disproportionate but, however, disagreed with the first appellate authority in not imposing the punishment and accordingly modified the order to that of reinstatement with continuity of service but without back wages. It defies reason as to how the second appellate authority could have directed reinstatement of an employee who has been found guilty of misappropriation, albeit temporarily, of funds of the petitioner-society. Such acts of corruption must be dealt with sternly and no lenience can be shown for such grave acts of misconduct. Since the charge of misappropriation has been proved, the first respondent could not have been reinstated into service. Interference with the orders of termination, for proved acts of misappropriation, is wholly unjustified and uncalled for. The second appellate authority has been unduly lenient and the sympathy, which he has shown to the first respondent, is evidently misplaced. For such acts of corruption, the order of punishment imposed by the petitioner-society of termination of services of the first respondent-workman must be upheld. Both the orders of the second appellate authority dated 10-02-1999 and the first appellate authority dated 10-10-1997 are set aside and the punishment imposed on the first respondent-workman by the petitioner-society of termination from service is upheld. The Writ Petition is, accordingly, allowed. However, in the circumstances, without costs. ______________ 27-02-2008 usd