IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SMT JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI & THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT APPEAL NO : 1709 of 2005 Between: B.V. Ramanaiah ..... APPELLANT AND 1 Appellate Authority under Section 48(3) of A.P. Shops & Establishments Act, 1988-cum-Deputy Commissioner of Labour (H) Hyderabad. .....RESPONDENTS The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE SMT JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI & THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT APPEAL NO :1709 of 2005 JUDGMENT: (per Hon’ble Smt. Justice T. Meena Kumari) Challenging the order, dated 18.08.2005 passed by the learned single Judge in W.P.No.19803 of 2001, the present writ appeal has been preferred. The appellant herein is the writ petitioner. He filed the above writ petition seeking to set aside the order dated 8.4.2001 passed by the 1st respondent in S.A.No.11 of 2000. The case of the writ petitioner is that he was appointed as Supervisor in the year 1978 and he was entrusted to process the loan applications of the applicants and also to ensure the recovery of loan instalments, besides collection of dues. While so, he was issued a charge memo dated 8.1.1981 on the allegation of misappropriation of the amounts collected from the loanees, and an enquiry was conducted and he was removed from service by proceedings dated 6.8.1981. On that, though he preferred an appeal before the Appellate authority, but the said appeal was rejected and hence, he raised a dispute before the 2nd respondent and the 2nd respondent ordered reinstatement of the writ petitioner into service with continuity of service with 40% back wages. Having aggrieved by the same, the 3rd respondent filed the second appeal, wherein, the order of the 2nd respondent was set aside. Hence, the writ petitioner-appellant filed the above writ petition. The learned single Judge having observed that the writ petitioner himself admitted the guilt of the charges framed against him and the findings of the enquiry officer are based upon the admissions made by the writ petitioner and that the appellate authority having taken into consideration the admission of the petitioner before the enquiry officer that he misappropriated the funds and tampered with the records, has rightly rejected the claim of the writ petitioner and therefore, such a finding cannot be construed either as perverse or contrary to law, dismissed the writ petition. Having aggrieved by the same, the present writ appeal has been preferred by the writ petitioner. Heard the learned Counsel and perused the material available on record. The learned Counsel for the writ petitioner-appellant contended that the appellant had paid the alleged misappropriated amount with interest and therefore, a lenient view has to be taken. On the other hand, the learned Government Pleader contended that the appellant admitted his guilt before the enquiry officer and therefore, the order of removal does not warrant any interference. As can be seen from the material available on record, it is apparent that the 2nd respondent passed the order of reinstatement on the ground that there was no evidence to show that the appellant was guilty of the charges. But the enquiry report as well as the order of the 1st respondent makes it crystal clear that the appellant admitted the guilt of the charges levelled against him. From this, there is no other go except to infer that the appellant misappropriated the amount as alleged against him. In this background of the matter, it is to be noted that the amount misappropriated by the appellant is public money. Therefore, simply because the writ petitioner-appellant has remitted the amount subsequently, he cannot be exonerated and as such, a lenient view as sought for by the learned Counsel for the writ petitioner-appellant cannot be considered in the peculiar circumstances of this case. In this view of the matter and in view of the nature and gravity of the charges, we have no hesitation to hold that the findings of the appellate authority in the appeal preferred by the Management are sustainable and hence, the order of the learned single Judge needs no interference. Accordingly, the writ appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs. ___________________ Justice T.Meena Kumari _________________ Justice Sanjay Kumar Dated: 25th November, 2009 Nn THE HON'BLE SMT JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI & THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT APPEAL NO :1709 of 2005 (Judgment of the Division Bench delivered by the Hon’ble Smt Justice T. Meena Kumari) 25th November, 2009