THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU WRIT PETITION No.14091 of 2007 Dated: 28.04.2010 Between: Mohd. Salauddin. .. Petitioner. And The Commissioner for Cooperation/ Registrar of Co.op.Societies, Government of A.P., Hyderabad, And others. .. Respondents. ORDER: It appears, the petitioner was initially appointed as Clerk in the third respondent-Bank i.e., District Cooperative Central Bank Limited, Medak, in the year 1975. On the allegation that while he was working in Establishment Section and attending to the note file relating to one G.Anjaiah, Ex-employee of the Bank, he failed to furnish the correct and entire information with regard to retirement of the said G.Anjaiah on Medical Invalidation grounds, disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the petitioner and he was issued with a charge sheet enumerating the following charges: “CHARGE-I: That Sri Mohd. Salauddin exhibited gross negligence in submitting the note file of Sri G.Anjaiah, Ex-employee of the Bank. That Sri Anjaiah, Ex-employee in his letter dated 08.05.2003 has sought voluntary retirement on medical grounds without seeking employment to his dependent and not asked 15 months salary as compensation in lieu of his balance period of service i.e., 2 years 9 months. But Sri Mohd. Salauddin, Clerk vide his note date 12.06.2003 has recommended for sanction of 15 months salary as compensation in lieu of balance period of service of 2 years 9 months. CHARGE-II: The Managing Committee of the Bank vide resolution dated 06.11.2003 while accepting the resignation of Sri G.Anjaiah, on medical invalidation grounds has resolved to authorize the General Manager to pay the retirement wages as per I.T.Award. Accordingly, Sri G.Anjaiah submitted affidavit dated 29.12.2003 giving undertaking that he will not seek any compassionate appointment. However, in the office note dated 10.12.2003 it was specifically proposed to pay compensation of 15 months wages and in the letter 31.12.2003 it was communicated that Bank will pay compensation of Rs.1,92,330/- in lieu of appointment to Sri G.Anjaiah.” The petitioner submitted his explanation on 10.04.2005, explaining the procedure to be followed in case of retirement on medical grounds. However, having not satisfied with the explanation submitted by the petitioner, a domestic enquiry was ordered by appointing the Deputy General Manager as an Enquiry Officer. The Enquiry Officer, after completion of enquiry proceedings, ultimately, submitted his report on 25.08.2006, holding the petitioner guilty of the charges. On the basis of the said report, a final show cause notice was issued to the petitioner on 08.09.2006 asking him to submit explanation as to why his scale of pay should not be fixed at Rs.5,835/- in the existing scale of pay, for which the petitioner submitted his explanation on 25.09.2006, but without considering the said explanation, the disciplinary authority issued impugned proceedings dated 27.11.2006, reducing the existing scale of pay of the petitioner to the basic pay of Rs.5,835/-, as per the provisions of Chapter XIII (Disciplinary proceedings) of the Memorandum of Settlement dated 15.06.1977, as was mentioned in the show cause notice as proposed punishment. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner preferred appeal before the appellate authority/Managing Committee and, on the other hand, also filed a writ petition being W.P.No.27202 of 2006, which was disposed of by orders dated 02.01.2007 with a direction to the appellate authority i.e., Managing Committee to consider the appeal preferred by the petitioner against the orders dated 27.11.2006 and pass appropriate orders, by examining the grounds raised by the petitioner, including the ground that the procedure contemplated under law has not been followed while imposing the said punishment on him. Pursuant thereto, the appellate authority disposed of the appeal on 26.05.2007, confirming the orders dated 27.11.2006 passed by the disciplinary authority. Hence, the petitioner filed this writ petition. A detailed counter affidavit has been filed by the 3rd respondent denying the allegations made by the petitioner and supporting the impugned orders dated 27.11.2006 passed by the disciplinary authority and as confirmed by the appellate authority in his orders dated 26.05.2007. At paragraph 4 of the counter affidavit, it is stated that the petitioner has mislead the respondents without bringing to their notice about the contents of G.O.Ms.Nos.202 and 203, GAD, dated 27.04.2002, as per which compassionate appointments were discontinued. It is further stated that the petitioner has also failed to bring to the notice of the Senior Officers about the subsequent modification of the compensation and, thereby, acted with ulterior motive to cause loss to the Bank and to help the said G. Anjaiah, in extending the non-available benefit. Learned counsel for the petitioner strenuously contended that the entire disciplinary proceedings were initiated and completed in biased manner violating the principles of natural justice; that the Enquiry Officer himself was the person who endorsed the file which the petitioner has circulated to him without properly endorsing the note on it; that despite the specific explanation submitted by the petitioner, the Enquiry Officer has not given any specific finding; that the conclusions arrived at by the Enquiry Officer are based on no evidence, but upon his own opinion without being supported by any material on record; that the report of the Enquiry Officer is vague and without proper appreciation of evidence; that the disciplinary authority has not properly appreciated the explanation submitted by the petitioner to the charge memo as well as the final show cause notice and that even assuming that there is some misconduct on the part of the petitioner and the charges are proved, the punishment imposed is disproportionate to that of the alleged misconduct. I have given my earnest consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsel and perused the impugned orders and other material made available on record. It is an admitted fact that the Deputy General Manager, who conducted the enquiry, was the person who endorsed the file that the petitioner has circulated to him without properly putting the note on it. The petitioner asserted that the enquiry was not conducted in a fair manner and there was gross violation of principles of natural justice, as the very Deputy General Manager, who signed the note file that was allegedly circulated by the petitioner with improper note, is appointed as the Enquiry Officer. Further, neither any amount was paid to the said G.Anjaiah as per the note put up by the petitioner nor any compassionate appointment was provided to his spouse or children. The misconduct alleged was detected at the note file stage. Admittedly, the petitioner is an employee of lowest rank and various allegations have been made against him that he has not put up certain G.Os and did not bring to the notice of the Officer the other G.Os available and governing the field as on that day. Generally, this aspect is dealt with by the higher officers. In this case, the entire blame is thrown on the petitioner. May be the petitioner is also supposed to be careful in putting up the note, but when once the note is not given effect to, the question of taking any disciplinary action against the petitioner, particularly, imposing a penalty of reducing his scale of pay to the basic pay of Rs.5,835/- forever is grossly disproportionate to that of the misconduct alleged. In these circumstances and also taking into consideration of the fact that the petitioner is at the verge of retirement, I deem it appropriate to give a quietus to the proceedings of this case, without remanding the matter to the disciplinary authority for re- consideration of the case. In view of the above, the punishment imposed in the impugned order is modified to that of the punishment of reduction of the existing pay of the petitioner to the basic pay of Rs.5,835/-, only for a period of two years and thereafter the pay of the petitioner shall be restored, duly sanctioning increments and fixing his pay as per his eligibility. This exercise shall be completed within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. With the above modification, the writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. _____________ C.V.RAMULU,J 28.04.2010 v v