1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G.NARENDAR THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA WRIT APPEAL NO: 635 of 2008 JUDGMENT: (per Hon’ble Sri Justice G. Narendar) Heard learned counsel for the appellants and learned counsel for the respondents. 2. The appellant-Devasthanam/employer is before this Court in the present Writ Appeal, aggrieved by the order dated 18.03.2008 rendered in W.P. No.24573 of 2006, whereby the learned single Judge was pleased to set aside the impugned order of removal from service dated 15.04.2002 and Board Resolution No.611, dated 21/22-1-2003. The learned single Judge has considered the matter in great detail and in fact has perused all the charges and enquiry report, holding that the charges 1, 3, 5 and 7 were proved and the other charges were not proved. After looking into the enquiry report and proximity between the order of transfer and the order of dismissal from service and after taking into consideration the order of compulsory retirement passed by the competent authority, the learned single Judge has been pleased to grant relief in toto to the respondents. The learned single Judge, after appreciating the material on record, particularly the findings of the Enquiry Officer, has observed that some of the charges could not have been framed 2 against the respondents. In other words, the learned single Judge has held the charges to be improbable. 3. That apart, the learned single Judge has observed that nothing is placed on record to show that the writ petitioner did not have the means to purchase CSD items to the tune of Rs.3,000/-. The learned single Judge has categorically observed that the findings of the Enquiry Officer are contrary to the material on record. In other words, the learned single Judge has observed that the appreciation of the evidence by the Enquiry Officer is hit by perversity. The learned single Judge has held that the charges by themselves are vague and the acts complained of are not the acts committed during the course of employment and in fact, the writ petitioner has been wrongfully implicated with the mala-fide intention of damaging his career. The learned single Judge has also faulted the appellants for having acted as a conscience keeper of the son of the writ petitioner. The learned single Judge has discussed the charges one by one and has concluded that the charges are either vague or baseless and that the appellants have proceeded against the writ petitioner with diffident attitude and has been pleased to set aside the order of compulsory retirement and further has been pleased to grant all consequential benefits including back wages. 4. We are of the considered view that the Writ Appeal is devoid of merits except to the extent of granting of full back wages. It is seen that the writ petitioner has not rendered any service for a period of nearly six years and four months. 3 5. In that view of the matter and also keeping in view the nature of the service rendered and that the funds are temple funds and also the fact that the writ petitioner is no more and is survived by married son and daughter, we deem it appropriate to partly allow the Writ Appeal to the extent of the payment of full back wages alone. 6. Accordingly, the order of the learned single Judge is affirmed except to the extent of the direction to pay complete back wages. The Writ Appeal is allowed in part and that portion of the order directing payment of back wages is modified to one of payment of 50% of the back wages to the legal representatives of the writ petitioner. 7. The Writ Appeal stands ordered accordingly. No order as to costs. As a sequel, pending interlocutory applications, if any, shall stand closed. _____________________ JUSTICE G.NARENDAR ______________________________ JUSTICE KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA Date: 16.07.2024 ANI/MVK 4 189 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.NARENDAR AND THE HON’BLE SMT. JUSTICE KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA WRIT APPEAL No.635 of 2008 Date:16.07.2024 ANI/MVK