THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO Writ Appeal No.1225 OF 2011 29-12-2011 Between: The Superintendent Engineer (Electricity), Operation Circle, APNPDCL, Warangal. ……….Petitioner And Y.Dayanandam and another. ………Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO Writ Appeal No.1225 OF 2011 JUDGMENT: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice Ghulam Mohammed) This writ appeal is filed against the order dated 10-02-2011 passed in W.P.No.1761 of 2003. 2. Brief facts which are necessary for disposal of this writ appeal are that the 1st respondent, who is the writ petitioner, was appointed as a Revenue Cashier/Bill Collector in the year 1981 in the appellant-Corporation and his services were regularized in the year 1983-84. While so, on certain allegations with regard to the misappropriation of funds collected from the consumers and causing loss to the revenues of the appellant-Corporation, he was suspended from service by order dated 21-09-1992, leveling two charges involving an amount of Rs.1084/- and after conducting a detailed enquiry, he was removed from service by order dated 17-02-1995. Aggrieved b thereby, the 1st respondent approached this Court and filed the W.P.No.27831 of 1995. This Court disposed of the said writ petition directing the 1st respondent to approach the Tribunal for proper adjudication of the matter. Then he approached the Indistrial Tribunal-cum- Labour Court, Warangal, and filed a claim petition under Section 2-A (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act in I.D.No.28 of 2000 contending that the enquiry officer failed to follow the principles of natural justice and also failed to appreciate the evidence in correct perspective. The Labour Court after considering the evidence on record, confirmed the order of removal dated 17-02-1995. Aggrieved thereby the 1st respondent filed the present writ petition. The learned Single Judge after considering the oral and documentary evidence on record, disposed of the writ petition setting aside the removal order dated 17-02-1995 and directing the appellants to reinstate the 1st respondent into service with continuity of service, but without any back wages and other attendant benefits. Challenging the order, the appellant filed the present writ appeal. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant-Corporation and the 1st respondent-workman and perused the record. 4. The learned counsel for the appellant-management contended that charges are serious and though it is a temporary misappropriation, the employee is not entitled to the reinstatement. 5. On the other hand, Sri S.Ravindranath, learned counsel for the 1st respondent-workman contended that he has made good the amount of Rs.1,084/- due to an erroneous calculation mistake. Further, in view of the unblemished service of 15 years rendered by the 1st respondent-workmen, the learned single Judge has exercised discretion rightly and properly by setting aside the removal order, hence, the same needs no interference. 6. By the impugned order passed in the writ petition, the learned Single Judge observed as follows: “The sum and substance of the charges levelled against the 1st respondent are that he altered the amounts in duplicate P.Rs., in respect of consumers of different villages, prior to remittance of the amount to the respondent-Corporation, thereby caused loss of Rs.1,084/- to the appellant- Corporation. Even if the charges are proved, as held by the disciplinary authority and the Labour Court, the same may not warrant removal from service, unless and until some past instances of the workman behaving in the same manner are found. No such past instances have been referred to in the impugned award. There is no dispute that the workman had rendered 15 years of unblemished service and that, for the first time, he has committed the alleged misconduct. Apart from this, before the enquiry was initiated, the workman has made good the amount of Rs.1,084/- which is alleged to have been misappropriated by him. In these circumstances, the Labour Court ought not to have confirmed the order of removal. Therefore, it would be just and proper to modify the impugned award as under: “The order of removal from service dated 17-02-1995 passed by the disciplinary authority against the petitioner-workman is set aside and the 1st respondent-management is directed to reinstate the petitioner-workman into service with continuity of service, but without any backwages and other attendant benefits.” 7. In the circumstances of the case, we are of the opinion that the learned Single Judge has rightly modified the punishment by directing the appellant-management to reinstate the 1st respondent-workman into service with continuity of service, but denied granting back-wages and other attendant benefits. Therefore, his services are liable to be counted for the period of removal from service. Therefore, the order as modified by the learned Single Judge is an appropriate and well considered in our view and hence, the same is not required to be interfered with under Clause 15 of Letter Patent. 8. In the result, the Writ Appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________________________ JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED Dated:29-12-2011 ____________________________________ JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO kvr