IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD MONDAY, THE SEVENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR WRIT APPEAL NOS 1460 AND 1487 of 2002 WRIT APPEAL NO. 1460 OF 2002 (Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the Order dated ______ in WP NO : 11182 OF 2001 on the file of the High Court.) Between: The Deputy Conservator, Visakhapatnam Port Trust, Visakhapatnam (disciplinary Authority) 2. The Chairman, Visakhapatnam Port Trust, Visakhapatnam. ..... APPELLANT AND Sri Shaik Fareed .....RESPONDENT Counsel for the Appellant: SMT.N.(P).ANJANA DEVI, SATYANARAYANA Counsel for the Respondent No.: MR.K.SRINIVASA MURTHY The Court made the following : WRIT APPEAL NO : 1487 of 2002 (Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the Order dated ______ in WP NO : 11182 OF 2001 on the file of the High Court.) Between: Sri Shaik Fareed, S/ M.D. Gouse, Muslim, Male, Aged about 33 years, R/o Qr.No. TI (1/413), Sagalagramapuram, Visakhapatnam ..... APPELLANT AND 1. The Deputy Conservator, Visakhapatnam Port Trust, Visakhapatnam (disciplinary Authority) 2. The Chairman, Visakhapatnam Port Trust, Visakhapatnam. .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Appellant:SMT.N.(P).ANJANA DEVI, SATYANARAYANA Counsel for the Respondent No.: MR.K.SRINIVASA MURTHY The Court made the following : COMMON JUDGMENT : (Per Sri Justice GHULAM MOHAMMED) As these two Writ Appeals are interconnected they are being disposed of by this common judgment. Both the Writ Appeals have been filed being aggrieved by the order dated 2.8.2008 passed in Writ Petition No. 11182 of 2001 by a learned Single Judge of this Court. Writ Petition was filed in the nature of writ of certiorari calling for the records from the respondents and examine the same and quash the impugned order of the second respondent dated 25/26-5-2001 signed by him on 28.4.2001, as appellate authority confirming the order of dismissal passed by the first respondent dated 10.2.2001 dismissing him from service; by holding that the same are illegal and arbitrary and consequently direct the respondents to reinstate him in service with all attendant benefits like continuation of service payment of back wages, increments, seniority and promotion etc. Writ Appeal No. 1460 of 2002 is filed by the management- Visakhapatnam Port Trust stating that this Court has no jurisdiction to interfere with the order of punishment unless it is so shockingly disproportionate. Writ Appeal No. 1487 of 2002 is filed by the appellant- petitioner stating that imposing punishment of withholding five increments for a period of three years and not granting back-wages and declaring that he is not entitled for allotment of Staff Quarters for a period of five years from the date of reinstatement is contrary to law and unsustainable. The learned Single Judge after considering the rival contents observed as under: “Therefore, the order of dismissal cannot be sustained either on facts or in law and the same is accordingly set aside. However, it is to be observed that the petitioner has resorted to certain acts, which cannot be countenanced, if don by an ordinary citizen, not to speak of an employee of an Organization. He was inconsistent as to the version put forward by him. He tried to bring about certain documents and evidence to sustain the same. While the petitioner has every right to regulate his personal life, the same should not tell upon his character as an employee of the Organisation. Whatever may have been his complicity, when the charge sheet was issued to him, the various steps taken by him have further aggravated it. Taking these factors into account, it is felt that the ends of justice would be met, if the penalty of withholding of five increments for a period of three years is imposed and the back wages are denied. Further, inasmuch as the petitioner had misused the residential accommodation, and it was alleged that on earlier occasion he sub-let it, he shall not be entitled for allotment of quarter. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed to the extent indicated below: (a) The order of dismissal dated 10.2.2001 is set aside and the petitioner shall be reinstated into service. (b) Punishment of withholding of five increments for a period of three years shall stand imposed on the petitioner. (c) The petitioner shall be entitled for continuity of service, but not back wages. (d) The petitioner shall not be entitled for allotment of Staff Quarter for a period of five years from the date of reinstatement. The respondents shall review the matter after five years and pass appropriate orders, in this regard. No costs.” Feeling aggrieved by the same, both the Management as well as the petitioner have come up before this Court by way of these Writ Appeals. Ms. Uma, learned counsel appearing for the Management contents that this Court cannot interfere with the quantum of punishment unless it comes to the conclusion that it is so shockingly disproportionate. She relied on the judgment of the Supreme court reported in STATE OF MEGHALAYA AND OTHERS VS. MECKEN SINGH N., MARAK[1], wherein the Supreme Court held as under: “For the foregoing reasons the appeal succeeds. The judgment rendered by the Division Bench of the Gauhati High Court dated March 7, 22006 delivered in writ appeal No. 282 of 2006 setting aside the order removing the respondent from service is quashed. The direction given by the Division Bench to the appellate authority, namely, the Inspector General of Police to consider and inflict punishment, short of removal from service commensurate with the gravity of the proven misconduct of the respondent is set aside. The order passed by the competent authority removing the respondent from service is restored. The appeal is accordingly allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.” On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondent- petitioner has contended that the petitioner was unnecessarily implicated in the issue since he has married Smt. P.P.J.S. Kamala by way of agreement dated 29.9.1997 and subsequently the marriage was solemnized and a certificate of marriage was issued on 12.6.2000 by the Marriage Officer. He has drawn our attention to the judgment of the Supreme Court reported in PEPSU ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION VS. RAWEL SINGH[2], wherein when the employee absented himself from work without taking proper leave and the employee did not participate in the disciplinary proceedings, the Corporation terminated the services on the ground of ‘gross misconduct. The Labour Court reinstated him with back-wages holding that the enquiry was unfair and the punishment was disproportionate and the High Court upheld the decision of the labour court and directed that sufficient opportunity be given to delinquent. In those circumstances, the Supreme Court held that for misconduct of unauthorized absence for few days, punishment of termination of service was disproportionate and directed reinstatement without any back-wages. The facts and circumstances of the judgments referred to above viz., STATE OF MEGHALAYA AND OTHERS VS. MECKEN SINGH N., MARAK (supra-1) and PEPSU ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION VS. RAWEL SINGH (supra-2) are different than the facts and circumstances of the present case. Therefore, they are not at all applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case. Be that as it may, it is needless to mention that the appellant- petitioner in W.A.No. 1487 of 2002 and one Smt.P.P.J.S. Kamala entered into an agreement of marriage on 29.9.1997 and after that they have taken a certificate of marriage from Marriage Officer, Visakhapatnam under the Marriage Act . That itself shows that they are wife and husband and they are living in the quarter. While exercising judicial review, this court can substitute the punishment to that of the punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority only when it is noticed that the punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority is shockingly disproportionate, to cut short the litigation and see that the matters should not be prolonged for a further period. Keeping in view the above limitations, particularly in disciplinary matters but to meet the ends of justice and to advance the cause of justice, we hold that in exercising the extraordinary jurisdiction, the leaned Single judge has not committed any error and rightly imposed punishment of withholding of five increments for a period of three years and rightly held that the appellant-petitioner is entitled for continuity of service but not backwages and he is not entitled for allotment of Staff Quarter for a period o five years from the date of reinstatement. Hence, we do not find any illegality or irregularity in the order passed by the leaned Single Judge and both the Writ Appeals are liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, both the Writ Appeals are dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J ______________________________ VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J Dt. 09.07.2009 KA ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1. 2 CD copies [1] 2008 (9) SCALE 326 [2] 2008 (2) SLR 826