IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE FOURTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION NO : 4540 of 1999 Between: ..... PETITIONER AND .....RESPONDENT 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 Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.A.K.JAYAPRAKASH RAO Counsel for the Respondent No.: . The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION No.4540 of 1999 ORDER: The petitioner, a Mess Supervisor in the University of Hyderabad, and a native of Madanapalle, availed L.T.C from Hyderabad to Madanapalle undertaking the journey from Secunderabad to Madanapalle on 14.5.1995 and for return from Madanapalle to Secunderabad on 9.6.1995. He also applied for leave from 15.5.1995 to 9.6.1995. On completion of the journey, and on his return to Hyderabad, he submitted an adjustment bill on 15.6.1995 claiming Rs.5975-75 ps towards the I Class train fare from Secunderabad to Madanapalle and back. The tickets produced by the petitioner were sent for verification and the Railways, vide letter dated 17.1.1996, informed the respondents that the petitioner had not traveled under the said P.N.R. Thereafter, memo dated 5.7.1996 was issued calling for the petitioner’s explanation. In his explanation dated 25.7.1996, the petitioner stated that he had cancelled the train tickets at the last minute and had gone by bus to Madanapalle where he underwent medical treatment for piles. Not being satisfied with the said explanation, a charge memo dated 31.8.1996 was issued and, on receipt of the petitioner’s reply thereto vide letter dated 13.9.1996, which was found not satisfactory, an enquiry was held. The enquiry officer in his report held that the petitioner had committed the irregularity of submitting the LIC claim mentioning the incorrect date of journey to Thambapalli railway station and had also including therein the incorrect claim of first class train fares for self and family for this part of the journey and to this extent the charge of not utilizing the amount for the purpose for which it was sanctioned was held established. The disciplinary authority in his proceedings date 20.11.1997, in exercise of the powers conferred on him under Rule 52 of University of Hyderabad Non-Teaching Employees’ (Terms and Conditions of service) Rules, imposed on the petitioner the penalty of stoppage of two increments with cumulative effect. The petitioner was further informed that, as a result of the penalty, he was not eligible for two sets of L.T.C. in addition to the sets withheld during the pendency of the proceedings against him. He was also directed to remit back the advance drawn by him with penal interest thereon. He was also directed to pay Rs.750/- which was paid to the South Central Railway by the University for verification of his journey particulars. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner preferred an appeal which came to be rejected, vide proceedings dated 16.2.1998 and hence the present writ petition. Sri A.K.Jayaprakash Rao, Learned Counsel for the petitioner, would contend that the petitioner had cancelled his journey by I Class in the Train at the last minute, and had undertaken the journey by bus, that he had brought all these facts to the notice of the authorities concerned in his letter dated 25.7.1996 and that there was no justification whatsoever on the part of the respondent - University in imposing such a deterrent punishment. Learned Counsel would contend that, in similar cases of misconduct, other employees were imposed the punishment of censure and that the petitioner was discriminated against in imposing such a harsh punishment of not only withholding two increments with cumulative effect but also denying him L.T.C. in future for two years and in directing repayment of the L.T.C. claim with penal interest and costs of Rs.750/-. Learned Counsel would contend that, in the appeal preferred by the petitioner, the authorities had recommended to the appellate authority that a lenient view be taken and his request for modification of the penalty be considered favourably. Learned counsel would submit that the action of the respondents in absolving others, charged of similar acts of misconduct, and in imposing a deterrent punishment on the petitioner was discriminatory. Learned counsel would place reliance on Anand Regional Coop. Oil Seedsgrowers’ Union v. Shaileshkumar Harshadbhai Shah[1] and Tata Engineering and Locomotive Company Ltd v. Jitendra Prasad Singh[2]. Sri N.V.Sumanth, Learned Standing Counsel for the respondent – University, would contend that the petitioner had, in fact, indulged in acts of misappropriation by traveling by bus and claiming I Class train fare for himself and his family. Learned Counsel would submit that the punishment imposed on the petitioner was only of stoppage of two increments with cumulative effect and that withholding of LTC was in accordance with Leave Travel Concession Rules whereunder if a person is found guilty of making a disputed claim, then the withheld claim would be disallowed and the next two sets would be forfeited and in case of grave misuse, the competent authority may disallow even more than two sets in addition to any penalty liable to be imposed under the disciplinary rules. Learned Standing Counsel would contend that the petitioner cannot compare his case with others who, unlike the petitioner, had admitted their guilt even before the misconduct was detected and had therefore been let off with a more lenient punishment of censure. A perusal of the enquiry report would disclose that the petitioner had reserved five full and one half ticket for self and his family in First Class by Train NO.7597 leaving on 14.5.1995 from Secunderabad to Madanapalle and had also reserved five full and one half ticket in First Class by Train No.7598 on 9.6.1995 leaving Madanapalle Road to Secunderabad. He had furnished the particulars of these tickets for verification in the Personnel Section of the respondent – University. On 1.7.1995 he submitted an adjustment bill/claim against the L.T.C. advance for Rs.5975/- showing his onward and return journey by First Class from Secunderabad to Madanapalle and back on 14.5.1995 and 9.6.1995 respectively. These details were got verified by the University with the South Central Railway Chief Commercial Manager who informed them that the petitioner and his family did not perform the journey by Train No.7597 on 14.5.1995 in First Class from Secunderabad to Madanapalle. On a memo being issued, the petitioner in his letter dated 25.7.1996 stated that he was sorry for the lapses in the claim, that due to his ill-health he had rescheduled his journey and had undergone surgery for piles at Madanapalle on 15.5.1995 and that as no evidence was available for the revised journey schedule he had claimed LTC as per the schedule, recorded with the university and that he had gone to his native place with his family. Before the enquiry officer the petitioner, in his defence statement, stated that he performed the journey with his family to his native place and had rushed to Madanapalle on 11.5.1995 instead of waiting upto 14.5.1995, that he could not inform the University of his rescheduled travel plan because the rescheduling was not done in advance, that he had performed the return journey by First Class as claimed in the L.T.C. bill and that the information given by someone, on behalf of the Chief Commercial Manager, was erroneous. In support of his statement, and in support of the fact that he actually performed the journey, he stated that he had enclosed bus tickets to the LTC claim for the journey from Madanapalli to his village, that he had claimed reimbursement of medical expenses incurred at his native place, that, because of pre-ponement of journey, he had applied for compensatory leave from 12.5.1995, that he had admitted there were anomalies in the LTC claim, that the claim was prepared on the basis of the original travel plan and this was done because no evidence of actual journey could be preserved and that he was sorry for the lapse. He stated that there was no deliberate intention of cheating the University and that he had not produced any false evidence. He admitted that while lapses had occurred these were not deliberate. The enquiry officer observed that the petitioner, in his letter dated 13.9.1996, had stated that he had utilized the advance given to him towards LTC and that he had no intention to prefer the fraudulent claim, that in his defence statement dated 23.12.1996 the petitioner had stated that he had rushed to Madanapalle on 11.5.1995 instead of waiting upto 14.5.1995, that he could not inform the university of his rescheduled travel plans and that he had performed the return journey by First class on 9.6.1995. The enquiry officer noted that if the petitioner had preponed his travel, and had gone on leave from 12.5.1995, there was no reason why he could not inform the change in his travel schedule and that he had failed to furnish to the authorities the connected details. The enquiry officer held that if, indeed, the petitioner had traveled by First Class on the rescheduled date he should be in a position to produce the necessary documentary proof which he did not do, instead he preferred the claim as per the old schedule based on the old documentary proof for the journey which he did not perform, and had produced bus tickets from Madanapalle to his native village. The enquiry officer noted that though the petitioner had admitted to have committed lapses, he did not state or spell out by what means these lapses had occurred. The enquiry officer further observed that the petitioner was sanctioned an advance of Rs.4600/- vide letters dated 19.4.1995 and 21.4.1995 and that he should have taken care to ensure that the claim submitted by him was for the journey which he had performed and, since he did not perform the journey in First Class as per his own statement, his mentioning in the LTC claim that he had performed the journey by First Class was incorrect. The enquiry officer concluded that the petitioner had hidden information about his preponement of journey as well as the actual journey and actual class traveled by him. It is evident that the petitioner, on his own admission, did not undertake the journey by Train in the First Class from Secunderabad to Madanapalle on 14.5.1995 whereas in the claim form submitted by him on 1.7.1995 he had informed that he had undertaken such a journey. If, in fact, the petitioner had not undertaken the journey by train in the First Class, on 14.5.1995, he ought to have admitted the truth and not to have claimed the First class train fare in his claim form dated 1.7.1995. His subsequent periodical admissions, after he was found to have indulged in making a fraudulent claim, cannot absolve him of blame nor can it be a ground to take a lenient view on the punishment to be imposed for such acts of misconduct. In Anand Regional Coop. Oil Seedsgrowers’ Union1 the Supreme Court observed:- “……..THERE is, however, another aspect of the matter which cannot be lost sight of, Identical allegations were made against seven persons. The Management did not take serious note of misconduct committed by six others although they were similarly situated. They were allowed to take the benefit of the voluntary retirement scheme. THE First Respondent might not have opted therefor. However, having regard to the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, he should be, in our opinion, treated on a similar footing. In view of the fact that the First Respondent has succeeded in the Labour Court and the learned Single Judge as also the Division Bench; we are of the option that having regard to the overall situation, the interest of justice would be subserved if the award of the Labour Court dated 31. 1. 2003 as affirmed by the High Court is substituted by a direction that the First Respondent shall also be given the benefit of voluntary retirement scheme from the month in which the other workmen were given the benefit thereof……..” In Tata Engineering and Locomotive Company Ltd2, the Supreme Court held: “………On an enquiry being held, the enquiry authority found that the allegation of misconduct is proved and the disciplinary authority on consideration of the report of the enquiry authority and the other relevant material dismissed the first respondent from service. Thereafter, a reference to the Labour Court at the instance of the first respondent was made. The Labour Court though held on a preliminary question that the disciplinary enquiry conducted against the first respondent is valid came to the conclusion after perusing the documentary and oral evidence on record that the dismissal was not justified and held that he was entitled to reinstatement with full back wages with continuity in service and other consequential benefits. A writ petition was filed in the High Court which was allowed but on the basis of certain offer made, the learned Single Judge also directed that the appellant shall pay to the first respondent salary from the date of discharge till the date of the order in a lump sum of Rs 50,000. Thereupon both the management and the workman filed two appeals. In the appeals, several questions were raised as to whether the act attributed to the first respondent would amount to misconduct at all which will entail a disciplinary enquiry at the instance of the management to end up with his dismissal; strong reliance was placed on Glaxo Laboratories (I) Ltd. v. Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Meerut1. Ultimately, however, the two learned Judges were agreed on one aspect of the matter that the question, whether on misconduct attributed to the workman there should have been causal connection between misconduct and employment of the workman may not be of much significance when such acts have taken place within the premises of the factory, should be decided in an appropriate case. What influenced the Court in deciding the matter is that: “Since as many as three workmen on almost identical charges were found guilty of misconduct in connection with the same incident, though in separate proceedings, and one was punished with only one month’s suspension, and the other was ultimately reinstated in view of the findings recorded by the Labour Court and affirmed by the High Court and the Supreme Court, it would be denial of justice to the appellant if he alone is singled out for punishment by way of dismissal from service.” As the judgment is rested upon this position, whatever other views may have been expressed in the course of the judgment may be of no significance. In that view of the matter, we think there is no need to interfere with the order made by the High Court, that too in a proceeding arising under Article 136 of the Constitution. Hence we decline to interfere with the order made by the High Court. The appeals are dismissed accordingly…….” Relying on these aforesaid judgments of the Supreme Court, Sri A.K.Jayaprakash Rao, Learned Counsel for the petitioner, would submit that since a lenient had been taken by the respondents as against others similarly situated, and as they had been imposed the punishment of censure, the petitioner being similar circumstanced could not have been singled out for harsh treatment. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondents the respondents would seek to explain the differential treatment and state that, while others had accepted their guilt even before initiation of disciplinary proceedings, the petitioner had not. It is evident from the material on record that not only had the petitioner made a false claim in his LTC claim form after his return to Hyderabad, he had admitted to his fraudulent claim only after the fraud was detected and memo was issued calling for his explanation. His admission of guilt was not candid nor did he state the complete truth but went on making admissions periodically from time to time. But for the fact that a memo was issued to him calling for his explanation, the petitioner’s involvement in such fraudulent acts would not have come to light. As such the comparison sought to be made by him with others who, according to respondents, had admitted their guilt even before the disciplinary proceedings were initiated against them does not merit acceptance. In State of Punjab v. Ex-Constable Ram Singh[3], the Supreme Court observed that even a single act of corruption would justify imposition of the deterrent punishment of dismissal from service. I n Chairman and Managing Director, United Commercial Bank v. P.C.Kakkar[4] the Supreme Court observed that, unless the punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority or the appellate authority shocks the conscience of the Court, interference was not called for. The punishment imposed on the petitioner was that of stoppage of two increments with cumulative effect. His being denied LTC for the subsequent period is in accordance with Rule 10 of the L.T.C. Rules whereunder an employee, found guilty of making a false LTC claim, is liable to be disallowed the claim and two sets of LTC in addition to any penalty imposed on him under the disciplinary rules. The penalty under the LTC Rules was a consequence of the misuse of LTC claim. The only punishment imposed on the petitioner, as a result of disciplinary proceedings, is stoppage of two increments with cumulative effect. The petitioner herein, by making a fraudulent claim, has sought to cheat the University and unduly enrich himself at the latter’s cost. He played fraud on the University by making a claim of having travelled by train in the First Class from Secundrabad to Madanapalle with his family members on 14.5.1995 though he had not undertaken any such journey. The punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority, to say least, is unduly lenient. While imposition of a lesser punishment on others found guilty of a similar act of misconduct may not be justified, the mere fact that the respondent University had acted illegally in taking an unduly lenient view in such cases would not justify similar indulgence being shown in favour of the petitioner herein, for it is well settled that no mandamus can be sought to perpetuate an illegality. (Chandigarh Administration v. Jagjit Singh[5]. As to whether the others, who were leniently, let off should have been imposed a higher punishment is not a matter which this Court can go into in the present writ petition wherein none of such employees are arrayed as respondents. Suffice to hold that no interference is called for with regards the punishment imposed on the petitioner of stoppage of two increments with cumulative effect for the fraudulent act committed by him of making a false LTC claim. The writ petition fails and is, accordingly, dismissed. However, in the circumstances, without costs. __________ 4-4-2008 asp [1] (2006)6 SCC 548 [2] 2001(1) LLN 77 [3] 1992(4) SCC 54 [4] AIR 2003 SC 1571 [5] (1995)1 SCC 745)