IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 8569 of 2008 Between: Y. Ramesh S/o. Y. Tirumalaiah Divisional Office, Secunderabad, R/o. Plot No.107, Bhagathnagar Colony, Jemmigadda, Kapra, Hyderabad 500062. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Senior Divisional Managaer, L.I.C. of India, Divisional Office, Jeevan Sagar Building, Behind NTR Stadium, Lower Tank Bund, Hyderabad. 2 The Zonal Managaer, L.I.C. of India, South Central Zonal Office, Jeevan Bhagya, Saifabad, Hyderabad. .....RESPONDENT(S) Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus, to declare that the impugned final orders dt. 10.01.2008 of the Senior Divisional Manager (Disciplinary Authority), Life Insurance Corporation of India, Jeevan Sagar Building, Behind NTR Stadium, Lower Tank Bund, Hyderabad, are without jurisdiction and authority and set aside the same and consequently direct the respondents to reinstate the Petitioner into service with all consequential benefits or issue an appropriate order or direction as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.P.BALA KRISHNA MURTHY Counsel for the Respondent No.: MR.A.RAVINDER REDDY The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 8569 of 2008 ORDER: The petitioner was employed as H.G.A (Steno) in the Life Insurance Corporation of India and was working in the Divisional Office, Secunderabad, 1st respondent herein. The wife of the petitioner filed a complaint under Sections 498-A and 406 I.P.C. and Sections 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, against the petitioner, his parents and younger brother, in P.S. Musheerabad. Crime No.25 of 1999 was registered. The same was tried as C.C.No.7 of 2003 by the Court of XIII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (Mahila Court), Hyderabad. Through its judgment, dated 06.09.2007, the trial Court convicted the petitioner and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years. A fine of Rs.3,000/- was imposed and in default of payment thereof, the petitioner was directed to undergo simple imprisonment for three months. On coming to know that the petitioner was convicted and sentenced in C.C.No.7 of 2003, the 1st respondent issued a charge sheet-cum-show cause notice, date 24.12.2007, directing him to explain as to why suitable disciplinary action shall not be taken against him. The petitioner submitted his explanation, dated 05.01.2008, stating that he had availed the remedy of appeal against the judgment of the trial Court. Through his order, dated 10.01.2008, the 1st respondent imposed the punishment of removal from service on the petitioner. Criminal Appeal No.303 of 2007 filed by the petitioner in the Court of V Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, (Mahila Court), Hyderabad against the judgment in C.C.No.7 of 2003 was allowed on 02.01.2008. The petitioner preferred an appeal against the order of removal, before the 2nd respondent on 22.01.2008, narrating these developments. The petitioner contends that the order passed by the 1st respondent, imposing the punishment of removal from service, cannot be sustained in law, inasmuch as the sole basis viz., the conviction and sentence ordered by the trial Court was set aside, even by the time the 1st respondent passed the impugned order. Sri Balakrishna Murthy, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that though as on the date of submission of explanation by the petitioner, Criminal Appeal No.303 of 2007 was pending, by the date of the impugned order, the Criminal Appeal was allowed, and the very basis mentioned in the impugned order ceased to exist. Learned counsel further submits that the impugned order deserves to be set aside. Sri A.Ravinder Reddy, learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, submits that the petitioner had already availed the departmental remedy of appeal and he can urge all the contentions in it. For all practical purposes, the 1st respondent was left with no alternative, except to impose the punishment on the petitioner, in view of the judgment rendered by the Court of XIII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate in C.C.No.7 of 2003. On his part, the petitioner has only explained that the appeal presented by him is pending. Between the date of submission of explanation and the date of passing the final order, the appeal preferred by the petitioner was allowed. It is evident that this fact was not brought to the notice of the 1st respondent. He proceeded as though the conviction and sentence ordered against the petitioner was subsisting on 10.01.2008. It is, however, a matter of record that the judgment of the trial Court was reversed on 02.01.2008 itself. From this, it is evident that it is on account of lack of proper communication as regards the developments, that the punishment of removal from service came to be imposed against the petitioner. This Court would have certainly intervened in the matter, but for the fact that the departmental appeal has already been preferred by the petitioner and the same is pending. This is a typical case, where neither the disciplinary authority nor the appellate authority have any discretion. The basis for punishing the petitioner is the conviction and sentence ordered against him by the trial Court. Now that the appellate Court had set aside the same, the entire issue needs to be considered afresh. It is not as if any departmental proceedings were initiated independently, much less, any finding was recorded therein. The appellate authority can take all these aspects into account and pass appropriate orders. He does not have to wait for the record nor does he have the necessity to appreciate the evidence. The matter is squarely governed by the judgments rendered by the concerned Criminal Courts. Under these circumstances, the Writ Petition is disposed of, directing the 2nd respondent to pass appropriate orders, on the appeal presented by the petitioner within a period of three (3) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, duly taking into account, the fact that the conviction and sentence ordered against the petitioner, which constituted the basis of his removal from service, has been set aside by the Court of V Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge (Mahila Court), Hyderabad in Criminal Appeal No.303 of 2007. There shall be no order as to costs. _________ 10.06.2008 Note: Issue C.C. in three (3) days. (B/o) JSU ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{MSN} THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 8569 of 2008 Date: 10.06.2008 JSU