IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION NO : 31969 of 1998 Between: K. Narasimha Murthy, S/o Surayya, R/o Cellar No.1, ABBAS Enclave, Muralinagar, Visakhapatnam. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Bharat Electronic Limited, rep. by General Manager (Personnel), Banglore. 2 The Deputy General Managaer, Regional Office, Bharat Electronics Ltd, Visakhapatnam. .....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 Writ, Order or Direction particularly one in the nature of Certiorari calling of the records leading and upto the issuance of Proceedings No.E-41161/HOA dt: 12-10-1998 and by quashing the same direct the Respondents to reinstate me into service of the Respondent department. with all consequential and attndent benifits and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: DR.P.B.VIJAY KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent No. : MR.P.NAGESWAR SREE The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION No. 31969 OF 1998 ORDER: The petitioner, erstwhile Assistant Publication Officer of Bharat Electronics Limited was alleged to have withdrawn Rs.8,730/- for availing Leave Travel Concession to his home town in the month of December, 1995. On the ground that he had drawn the amount, but had failed to undertake the journey, he was issued charge memo dated 15.05.1996 wherein the two charges leveled against him are as under:- i. On 26.12.1995, he submitted LTC Home Town Claim (1991-94) (2nd half of the four years block period extended upto 31.12.1995). As per the details furnished therein, he undertook the travel along with his dependent parents by train (AC II Class) on 17.12.1995 from Visakhapatnam to Delhi and returned to Vizag on 24.12.1995. In support of this statement, he furnished the ticket numbers 0535199 (for onward journey) and 719332 (for return journey). As per his claim he was paid Rs.8,730/- (Rupees Eight thousand seven hundred thirty only) for the to and fro journeys by the accounts department on 25.1.1996 vide Debit Advice Slip No. 1220. However the aforesaid journeys were never performed by him, even then he had submitted the said false LTC claim and thereby defrauded the Company financially. ii. In addition to above in his letter dated 1.2.1996 addressed to the General Manager (Finance)/C.O. copies ;of which were marked to various Company authorities including CID, he has made a long list of false land unfounded allegations, including corruption charges against his superior officer Cmdr. P.R. Murthy (Retd) DGM/Visakhapatnam. These allegations are not only grave but also calculated to bring down the reputation of the said superior officer in the yes of company’s employees. The enquiry officer, in his report, dealt mainly with the second charge and held the petitioner guilty of both the charges. The Disciplinary authority merely concurred with the findings of the enquiry officer and, while the appellate order dated 12.10.1998 was slightly more elaborate, it also did not deal with the question as to whether or not the petitioner undertook the journey for which he had withdrawn the L.T.C. amount. Sri P. Nageswarasree, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent, would draw attention of this Court to the evidence adduced in the departmental enquiry to contend that there is ample evidence on record to show that the petitioner did not undertake the journey. Learned Standing Counsel would point out that, while the petitioner had contended in the departmental enquiry that he had lost the tickets, had board the train at Visakhapatnam purchasing a fresh ticket at the last moment and had converted his ticket to A.C. second class from Rajahmundry, in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition the petitioner had stated that he undertook the journey by bus. While these submissions made by the learned Standing Counsel cannot be said to be without merit, it cannot be lost sight of that this Court, in certiorari proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, would not take upon itself the task of re- appreciating the evidence to record a finding of guilt against the delinquent employee, for these are all matters for the competent authority to decide. Suffice to hold that, since neither the enquiry officer nor the disciplinary authority nor even the appellate authority has recorded a finding whether or not the petitioner had, in fact, undertaken the journey for which he claimed Leave Travel Confession, the finding of guilt recorded against the petitioner with respect to charge No.1 must be set aside. The fact, however, remains the petitioner was also held guilty of charge No.2. It is well settled that even if one, among the several charges, is held established and for the said charge held proved the punishment imposed can be justified, even then this Court would not interfere in proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Whether the punishment of dismissal from service could have been imposed for the second charge, wherein the allegations made by the petitioner against the General Manger (Finance) was held to be unfounded, is again a matter not for this Court but for the competent authority to decide. Suffice to hold that among the two charges, the first charge of having claimed LTC and in not undertaking the journey is a far more serious charge, which if established would justify the punishment imposed of dismissal from service. However, since the authorities have not recorded a finding in this regard, I consider it appropriate to set aside the order of the appellate authority dated 12.10.1998 and remand the matter for his consideration afresh in accordance with law. Needless to state that the order of the disciplinary authority shall continue to remain in force and would depend on the outcome of the proceedings before the appellate authority. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. No costs. _______________________________ Date: 25.02.2008 RAMESH RANGANATHAN, J MRKR To 1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{KKG}