THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C V RAMULU Writ Petition No.18682 OF 2005 DT. 14.2.2011 Between: Dr.Ch.Bhaskar Rao … Petitioner And The Chairman & Board of Directors, Singareni Colleries Company ltd and another … Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri T.P.Acharya Counsel for respondent: Sri N Krishna Rao The Court made the following ORDER: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C V RAMULU WRIT PETITION NO. 18682 OF 2005 ORDER: This writ petition is filed seeking mandamus declaring the proceedings of the second respondent in order No.C28/933 dated 11.6.2000 and consequential order passed by the first respondent vide letter No. CRP/PER/C111/1740 dated 30.6.2005 as illegal, arbitrary and violative of principles of natural justice with a further direction to the respondents to reinstate the petitioner into service with all consequential benefits. It appears that the petitioner joined the respondent company as Medical Officer in the year 1975 and subsequently promoted as Deputy Medical Superintendent in the Area Hospital in the year 1991. While so, on 19.5.1999 he was issued with a charge sheet enumerating the following charges; i).. You have submitted a false T.A.Bill dated 16.12.1998 claiming to have attended /participated in the National Workshop on Human Resources Development and Industrial Relations in Hospitals at Bangalore during the period from 8.9.1998 to 12.9.1998 though the same was deferred to the second week of November, 1998 by Indian Society of Health Administrators (ISHA) Bangalore and ii).. fabricated and submitted a receipt for Rs.3400/- on a bogus letter head of Indian Society of health Administrators (ISHA) Bangalore with the forged signature of its professor and Honorary Executive Director; which is an act of misconduct under Rules 5 (1), 5 (5) and 5 (17) read with Rule 4 (1) of CD & A Rules of the company” The petitioner submitted his explanation dated 8.6.1999 to the charge sheet stating that it was a sheer mistake and error on his part and he may be pardoned for claiming TA bills. The case of the petitioner is that he went to Bangalore for attending the workshop, however, after reaching the destination, he was informed by ISHA that the workshop was deferred and after having returned home he claimed the TA bill for the expenditure incurred by him. Having not satisfied with the explanation, an enquiry was ordered and an enquiry officer was appointed to enquire into the matter, however, the petitioner appears to have not attended the enquiry since the charge is very trivial in nature. Even in the enquiry, nobody was examined, except an attender who was assisting the enquiry officer, to say that when the petitioner was called, he was not present. Thereafter the enquiry officer submitted his report on 8.4.2000 holding the petitioner guilty of the charges leveled against him, for which the petitioner submitted his explanation on 20.4.2000. However, having not satisfied with the same, the disciplinary authority passed an order of removal from service dated 11.6.2000. The appeal filed by the petitioner was ultimately dismissed. Hence, the present writ petition. Mr. J Sudheer, learned counsel for petitioner, strenuously contended that principles of natural justice are violated in conducting enquiry and absolutely there was no evidence available on record to hold the petitioner guilty of the charges alleged against him. It is also submitted that though the respondent management contended that the receipt issued by ISHA submitted by the petitioner is bogus one, it did not choose to examine the author of said receipt to prove it as a fraudulent one. It is further stated that though the petitioner went to Bangalore where he was informed by ISHA that the workshop was deferred, since the amount involved is merely Rs.4900/- he admitted his mistake and without taking into consideration all these facts, for a trivial mistake, the disciplinary authority without erred in imposing the major punishment, which is shockingly disproportionate to the charge alleged against the petitioner. It is also stated that the petitioner has brought to the notice of the disciplinary authority the matters where the officers involved in serious misconduct were let off with minor punishment, however, the same were not considered and petitioner was discriminated and punished for a trivial misconduct, therefore the impugned order is liable to be set aside. In support of his contentions, he has drawn the attention of this Court to the judgment of the Supreme Court in STATE BANK OF INDIA Vs. SAMARENDRA KISHORE ENDOW AND ANOTHER[1] wherein it was held that ‘removal from service for falsely claiming traveling expenses, is harsh’. He further relied on the orders passed by this Court in W.P. No. 24150 of 2005 dated 16.7.2010 wherein the punishment of removal is modified to that of compulsory retirement. It is further submitted that the petitioner has already reached the age of retirement on superannuation. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondents supported the impugned order of dismissal which was confirmed in appeal by the appellate authority. It is also stated that the petitioner is working as Deputy Medical Superintendent, Area Hospital, holding high office and is not supposed to involve himself in claiming false TA bills. It is also stated that the petitioner wantonly did not participate in the enquiry and now he cannot blame the enquiry officer or the enquiry conducted against him wherein he was found guilty of the charge leveled. It is also stated that since the petitioner has already accepted the guilt, there is no need to examine the author of the receipt produced by the petitioner stated to have been issued by ISHA. It is thus contended that the order needs no interference from this Court. Heard both sides. It is to be noted that the charge leveled against the petitioner is trivial in nature and, in fact, that apart the petitioner went to Bangalore to attend the work shop where he was informed that the workshop was deferred and then he returned and submitted TA bills after three months, since he has drawn the advance amount while going to Bangalore. Thus, the controversy in the present case seems to be submission of fraudulent receipt by the petitioner for claiming TA bills. It is pertinent to note that though the respondent contends the receipt submitted by the petitioner as fraudulent one, it has not examined anybody from ISHA. The petitioner has also brought to the notice of the disciplinary authorities the cases where the persons involved in serious misconduct were let off with minor punishments. Thus, it is clear that for a trivial misconduct the petitioner was imposed with major punishment which is unjust and is liable to be set aside. Thus, the contention of the learned counsel for petitioner that the petitioner being discriminated, appears to be true. Generally speaking in this type of cases, it needs to be remanded for reconsideration. But in the present case, since already ten years have lapsed and petitioner has already crossed age of superannuation, I am of the view at this stage remanding the matter would not serve any fruitful purpose and it would be appropriate to give a quietus to the litigation here itself. In the above facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the opinion that ends of justice would be met if the order of removal is modified to that of compulsory retirement as on the date of passing of the impugned order. In the result, the writ petition is disposed of, and the impugned order of removal is modified to that of compulsory retirement as on the date of impugned order, as a measure of punishment. The respondents shall settle all the benefits, whatever, payable to the petitioner as per his eligibility under the rules within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs. ____________ C.V.RAMULU,J DATE: 14.2.2011 TVK THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C V RAMULU Writ Petition No.18682 OF 2005 DT. 14.2.2011 [1] 1994 (2) SCC 537