THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR W.A.NO. 621 OF 2009 Date of disposal: 22.6.2010 Between: Mr. V. Ashok Kumar …Appellant and The A.P. Transco Ltd. (APSEB) and others …Respondents. THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S. RAO AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR W.A.NO. 621 OF 2009 ORDER: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice Vilas V. Afzulpurkar) This appeal is preferred by the writ petitioner who was working as a lineman with the respondents- Corporation. On the ground that there were serious allegations of misconduct against the appellant under Regulation No. 11 (b) of Andhra Pradesh State Electricity Board of Discipline and Appeal Regulations, a disciplinary enquiry was instituted against him and he was kept under suspension with effect from 5.4.1989. In the said enquiry conducted by the Divisional Engineer, the following three charges were framed against the appellant,, CHARGE No.1:- Sri V.Ashok Kumar, Lineman (U/S) is reported to have run Karate School in his house premises near Government Degree College, Khammam, under name and style “School of Marshal Arts Karate” while he was in service as Lineman in Board in Suryapet sub-station since 11-01-1989. He thus violated Regulation No.4 (ix) of Conduct Regulation, failed to uphold absolute integrity expected from him and committed Misconduct as per A.P.S.E.Board (Revised) Conduct Regulations. CHARGE No.II Sri V.Ashok Kumar LM (U/s) is reported underwent LMTC training at Warangal from 13-03-1989 to 27-03-1989 in between absented himself from LMTC training Centre Warangal and presented himself at Karate School near Government Degree College grounds Khammam, on 24-03- 1989 during evening hours where there reported attack by himself with others on Sri Purohit Deepak Singh, succumbed later, during later hours of evening of 24th March, 1989. Thus he violated set of disciplined behaviour, indulged in unbecoming acts – thus shattered the image of Board before public apart from failure to uphold absolute integrity expected from him and Committed Misconduct as per APSE Board (Revised) Conduct Regulations. CHARGE No.III Sri V.Ashok Kumar LM (U/s) is reported to have not taken prior permission to be absent – thus absconded from duty nor did he report to duty, soon on completion of LMTC training held between 13-03-1989 to 27-03-1989 at Warangal, he having absented himself at Training Centre on 27-03-1989. He did not perform any duty since 28-03-1989. He thus indulged in unauthorized absence besides being not dutiful and deviated from the disciplined attendance of training and duties. Thus, he did not uphold absolute integrity expected from him and committed Misconduct as per APSE Board (Revised) Conduct Regulations.” Though the appellant denied the charges, an enquiry was conducted and an enquiry report was submitted holding that the charges 1 and 2 were not proved, but charge No.3 was held proved against the appellant. A further show cause notice was, therefore, issued by the disciplinary authority and a final order of punishment was passed against the appellant on 14.5.1997 imposing punishment of (1) stoppage of two increments with cumulative effect, (2) treating the period of suspension as suspension only and (3) treating the unauthorized absence period as ‘dies non’. Since the appeals preferred by the appellant before the appellate authorities were unsuccessful, he approached this Court by filing WP No. 3285 of 2000. A learned single Judge of this Court heard the said writ petition and recorded conclusions on merits holding that it cannot be said that the appellant has not committed any misconduct and as such the charge of unauthorized absence was held proved. However, to the extent of the punishment, the learned single Judge was of the opinion that the punishment imposed was shockingly disproportionate to the gravity of the charges and after noticing the decisions of the Supreme Court in B.C. Chaturvedi Vs. Union of India [1] and Cantonment Executive Officer and another Vs. Vijay D. Wani and others [2] and keeping in view over all circumstances of the case and pendency of the writ petition for a considerable length of time, the writ petition was partly allowed by setting aside the punishment of ‘dies non’ and it was clarified that the punishment of stoppage of two increments with cumulative effect and treating the period of suspension as suspension was confirmed and the learned single Judge held that the appellant was entitled for all consequential benefits in view of setting aside the punishment of ‘dies non’. Not satisfied with the relief granted to the appellant, he has filed the present writ appeal. Heard learned counsel for the appellant as well as learned standing counsel for the respondents. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant has been subjected to multiple punishments and seeks that the said punishment is clearly disproportionate. It is also contended that the charges framed are not so serious and the punishment is totally disproportionate to charge No.3 which has been held proved against the appellant. The learned standing counsel for the respondents, on the contrary, submits that the appellant was found to have absented from duty and not reported to duty even after completion of lineman training held between 13.3.1989 and 27.3.1989 and he not only remained absent at the training center, but he did not attend to duty and therefore his complete unauthorized absence was clearly a misconduct under the Andhra Pradesh State Electricity Board (Revised) Conduct Regulations. We have considered the aforesaid rival contentions and find from the judgment of the learned single Judge that the appellant was concurrently found guilty by the disciplinary authority as well as by the appellate authorities and subsequently the learned single Judge also concurred that this is a case where the appellant had applied for leave after absenting himself from duty unauthorisedly and as such the said period was not covered by any prior sanction and as such the finding of unauthorized absence clearly amounted to misconduct under the Rules. The learned single Judge, however, has considered the matter from the stand point of view that almost eight years passed during which the writ petition was pending and in order to ensure quietus to the litigation and in the interest of justice, the punishment imposed on the appellant was modified and he was granted relief by setting aside the punishment of treating his period of unauthorized absence as ‘dies non’. The other punishments namely stoppage of two increments with cumulative effect and treating the period of suspension as suspension, was, however, not interfered with by the learned single Judge and the same was confirmed. On the facts and circumstances of the case, we are not persuaded to take a different view and we are of the view that the judgment of the learned single Judge was just and proper and warrants no interference in appeal. The writ appeal is accordingly dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. _______________________ JUSTICE V. V. S. RAO ________________________________ JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR Dt. 22.6.2010 KR [1] 1996 LAB I.C. 462 [2] (2009) 1 Supreme Court Cases (L&S) 152