THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH W.P.NO.20010 OF 2002 O R D E R Heard both the counsel. 2. The petitioner is the management of M/s Singareni Collieries Company Limited, Ramakrishnapur Division, Ramakrishnapur, Adilabad District. The 2nd respondent is the workman. Aggrieved by the award dated 17.06.2002 passed by the Industrial Tribunal – cum – Labour Court, Godavarikhani in I.D.No.23 of 2002, the present writ petition is filed. 3. By the impugned award, the Tribunal set aside the order of removal passed by the management and directed reinstatement along with twenty five per cent back wages and further directed the management to grant increments from the date of removal till the date of reinstatement. 4. The workman was appointed as clerk grade-II in the petitioner – company in the year 1988 and posted at MVTC, Ramakrishnapur in October, 1990. Prior to the posting of the workman at MVTC, Ramakrishnapur, one Srinivas, General Mazdoor was attending to the duties of the clerk. The duties of the clerk were preparing of pay sheets, receiving and disbursing cash to the trainees, typing and submitting returns to the company and also record keeping. After the workman was posted to the said post, Srinivasa Rao was assisting the clerk. As a clerk, the claimant was responsible for preparation of pay sheets and disbursement of training allowance to the trainees. While so, on 8.7.1997, the Training Manager of MVTC, Ramakrishnapur, found irregularities in preparation of pay sheets. The case of the claimant is that P.Narasimha Rao, Training Manager, obtained his statement of confession by threat to the effect that he played fraud in preparing pay sheets and has appropriated company amount. Based on the said irregularities, the claimant was suspended on 29.7.1997 and charge sheet was issued on 27.10.1997. The charge against the claimant under Ex.M-1 charge is that the claimant prepared pay sheets and handled cash from 1990 to 1996 and that in the pay sheets, it was found that the signatures and thumb impressions were not there, they were not indicated as unpaid and not remitted cash except on two or three times and that the names mentioned in the pay sheets of basic training candidates were found to be fictitious and also the names mentioned in the pay sheets were found to be fictitious, when compared with the relevant basic record and it was found that there were repetition of names and some workmen were already paid during earlier period and thus the claimant mis- appropriated/defalcated an amount of Rs.2,38,460/-. Domestic enquiry was conducted and the enquiry officer submitted report holding the charge against the claimant as proved and eventually with effect from 9.12.1998, the claimant was removed from service. Hence, on a reference, the claimant made his claim, claiming reinstatement into service. The Tribunal on re-appreciation of evidence, found that the charge against the claimant is partly proved, and that the other two persons namely P.Narasimha Rao, Training Manager and P.Narsaiah, In-charge Training Manager, at the relevant period, were also found responsible for the defalcation of the amount in the present charge, and as they were imposed lesser punishment, modified the order of dismissal of the claimant to that of reinstatement with continuity of service, and also granted 25 per cent back wages and directed to grant notional increments from the date of dismissal till the date of reinstatement. Hence, the present writ petition. 5. From the material on record, there is no much dispute with regard to the facts. The claimant was charged sheeted for irregularities in preparation of pay bills and for misappropriation/defalcation of an amount of Rs.2,38,460/- and the domestic enquiry was conducted, in which the guilt of the claimant was found proved. But from the impugned award it could be seen that the Tribunal found that under proceedings dated 7.12.1999, P.Narasimha Rao, Training Manager was also made responsible for defalcation of the amount and he was charge sheeted and he was found guilty of the charge. Similarly P.Narsaiah, was also found responsible for the defalcation of the amount, after conducting of domestic enquiry. These two persons were imposed with the punishment of censure and reduction of the pay by two increments with cumulative effect, respectively. Therefore, the Tribunal modified the punishment imposed on the claimant. 6. But it is be noticed that in the present case, the duty of the petitioner is to prepare bills and to disburse the amount and the charge against him is found to be proved in the domestic enquiry. Just because the other two persons were awarded lesser punishment, the claimant cannot claim any party and if that be the case, the person who assisted him, i.e., Srinivas, and who was only a mazdoor, was removed from service and hence, no comparison can be made and only depending upon the facts and circumstances, the management has imposed the punishment and the Tribunal has to only consider the proportionality of the punishment based on the facts and circumstances. 7. In the present facts and circumstances, I am of the view that directing the petitioner – management to reinstatement the petitioner into service afresh without any back wages and notional increments, would meet the ends of justice. 8. Accordingly, in exercise of the jurisdiction under Section 11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 the relief granted by the Tribunal is modified to the effect that the petitioner – management shall reinstate the 2nd respondent - claimant into service afresh without any back wages and notional increments. However, the claimant is granted continuity of service, which shall be used only for terminal benefits. 9. The writ petition is accordingly allowed in part. No costs. AVS ------------------------- --- 28—04— 2011