ORAL ORDER: This writ petition is filed seeking a Mandamus declaring the action of the second respondent in passing Order No.SRP(P)/P(IR)13.C/99/873 dated 17.4.1999 as arbitrary, illegal and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents to continue the petitioner in Category-C with pay scale as per Office Order dated 10.4.1999. It appears, petitioner while working in the ‘C’ category, he was issued with a charge sheet on 13.8.1996 with the following charge: “On 27.7.1996 you were engaged as Lorry Driver on APIT 8436 to Transport MS.Scrap to Kothagudem with instructions to bring back available stores material from Main Stores, Kothagudem to SRP(P) area. It is reported that you handed over only 176 nos. of new cast Iron Rollers instead of 200 nos. entrusted to you vide IST No.30002 dated 30.7.1996. There was a shortage of 24 nos. of C.I. Rollers which clearly shows that you have handed over less quantity at SRP-Area Stores, than what were given to you at Main Stores, Kothagudem for transportation. The value of 24 new cast Iron Rollers amounts to Rs.8,276/- of Rs.3445.65 per piece. You have thus committed theft of company’s property constituting misconduct under clause 25.1 of the Standing Orders”. After conducting a detailed enquiry into the matter, vide impugned proceedings, petitoner was reverted to Category-V post and the loss caused i.e. Rs.8,276/- was recovered from him. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition is filed. The learned counsel for petitioner strenuously contended that in fact, petitioner in his explanation, admitted that there was a shortage of 24 nos. casting iron rollers worth Rs.8,276/-, which could be due to mistake in counting as there were six persons loaded the material into lorry while it was heavily raining at Kothagudem, otherwise, there was no mala fide intention on the part of petitioner nor he has caused loss wantonly. When the loss has been made good, and there was no mala fide intention on the part of petitioner, the question of reverting him from Category-C to Category-V post does not arise, when he made good of the loss caused. Whereas the learned counsel for respondents supported the order passed by the respondents and stated that the petitioner himself, in his explanation, had admitted that there was a shortage of 24 nos. of cast iron rollers. Since the explanation submitted by the petitioner was not found satisfactory, a detailed enquiry was conducted and in the said enquiry, petitoner was found guilty of the charge. Therefore, the impugned order was passed reverting the petitoner from Category-C to Category-V post, which cannot be said to be either arbitrary or illegal. I have given my earnest consideration to the respective submissions made by the learned counsel on either side and perused the impugned order and other material made available on record. I am of the opinion that the respondents have not committed any error in passing the order of reversion and also recovering the loss caused to the department. Petitioner himself admitted as to causing of loss to the department, but gave an evasive reply stating that it might have caused due to wrong counting as there were six persons loaded the material into lorry in the heavy rain at Kothagudem. In the departmental enquiry, the charges were proved. However, since the petitioner made good of the loss by paying an amount of Rs.8,276/- for 24 nos. new cast iron rollers, the impugned order of reversion permanently seems to be little harsh and disproportionate to that of the misconduct alleged and as such requires modification. Under those circumstances, to meet the ends of justice, the reversion of the petitioner from Category-C to Category-V post shall be treated from 17.4.1999 till 16.4.2008 and thereafter, petitioner shall be allowed to work in Category-C post and his emoluments shall be paid as per his eligibility in the said category. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. No order as to costs. ____________ C.V.RAMULU, J Date: 14.3.2008 DA IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE FOURTEENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU WRIT PETITION NO : 12390 of 1999 Between: V.Chandra Mouli, S/o Rangaiah, R/o Q.No.SA 226, Srirampur Colony (post), R.K.8, Colony, Mancherial (M) Adilabad District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Singareni Collieries Company Limited, Rep. by its Chairman & Managing Director, Kothagudem, Khammam District. 2 The General Manager, The Singareni Collieries Company Limited, Kothagudem, Khammam 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 issue a Writ, Order, or Direction, more particularly one in nature of Writ of MANDAMUS declaring the action of 2nd respondent in issuing order No.SRP(P)/P(IR)13.C/99/873 dt.17/4/99 has wholly illegal, arbitrary and without any justifiction and amounts to violation of Article of 14 of Constitution of India and consequently direct the petitioners in Category-C with pay scale as per Office Order dt.10/4/99 and pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstance of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.V.VISWANATHAM Counsel for the Respondent No.: MR.K.SRINIVASA MURTHY The Court made the following :