THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION No.34205 of 1997 Date: 30.1.2008 Between : G. Pullamma …..Petitioners And The Secretary, A.P. State Electricity Board, Vidyut Soudha & another. … Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION No.34205 of 1997 ORDER: Heard Sri V. Venkata Rami Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner. No counter is filed on behalf of the respondent. Neither is the Standing Counsel present in Court nor is there any representation on his behalf. Aggrieved by the order of the 2nd respondent dated 30.8.1995, and the consequential order of the 3rd respondent dated 1.3.1996, Smt. G. Pullamma, W/o.Late Sri G. Pulla Reddy, has invoked the jurisdiction of this Court. Facts, in brief, are that the petitioner’s husband, late Sri G. Pulla Reddy, was appointed as a Helper in the respondent-State Electricity Board on 16.7.1977 and worked in the said post till 1.4.1980. He was promoted as Revenue Cashier on 2.4.1980 and worked as such till 1993. While he was working as Revenue cashier, the respondent issued charge memo dated 27.6.1994 alleging that he had defalcated Board funds to the extent of Rs. 19,374/- from 12.4.1993 to 27.4.1993. In his explanation thereto, the petitioner’s husband stated that he was suffering from paralysis from 1987, because of poverty he had utilized the amount and that the same was returned on 10.5.1993 and 28.9.1993. He requested the 2nd respondent to take a lenient view. An Enquiry Officer was appointed, charges were framed and taking into consideration the explanation submitted by the petitioner, an enquiry report was submitted holding Sri G. Pulla Reddy guilty of the charge of defalcation of Board’s funds. A show cause notice was issued and, in his explanation dated 24.10.1994, Sri G. Pulla Reddy reiterated that he had utilised the amounts because he was suffering from paralysis and requested that a lenient view be taken. Thereafter, the 2nd respondent passed the order dated 30.8.1995 imposing on him the punishment of removal from service. Aggrieved thereby, he preferred an appeal on 23.9.1995. During the pendency of the appeal, he died on 26.01.1996 leaving behind him the petitioner, three daughters and one son. The petitioner herein, thereafter, filed a mercy petition based on which, the 3rd respondent reduced the punishment of removal to that of compulsory retirement of service vide proceedings dated 1.3.1996. It is this order of compulsory retirement which is sought to be questioned in this writ petition. Petitioner contends that since the entire amount was returned, and as the amount had been utilized for her husband’s treatment and had, in any event, been returned in its entirety, the punishment awarded to her husband was grossly disproportionate. Petitioner contends that she has three daughters and one son, their family has no other source of income, that her husband had no intention of misappropriating Board’s funds, that, because of the unfortunate circumstance of his suffering from a debilitating disorder of paralysis, he had perforce to utilize the said amount to meet his medical needs and that he had subsequently returned the amount in its entirety. Petitioner would contend that, while she had made a request on 22.8.1997 seeking compassionate appointment for her daughter-Bhavani, the 1st respondent had not considered her application because of the punishment awarded by the respondents. In the memo dated 1.3.1996, the Chief Engineer, A.P.State Electricity Board, took a lenient view on humanitarian grounds that the family of the deceased employee should not suffer for the acts of Sri G.Pulla Reddy and accordingly reduced the punishment to that of compulsory retirement from service. The charge levelled against the petitioner’s husband, which he admitted, is that of defalcation of funds of the A.P. State Electricity Board. Whatever may be the reason for his having done so, the fact remains that he had misappropriated the funds of the Board, which constitutes gross mis- conduct. The fact that he returned the money later, would not absolve him of the charge of temporary mis-appropriation of the funds of the Board. While the initial order of punishment of removal cannot be said to be without justification, the Chief Engineer took a lenient view of the matter, keeping in view the fact that the petitioner’s husband had left behind him his widow, three daughters and a son and had accordingly modified the punishment of removal to that of compulsory retirement to enable payment of terminal benefits to the widow of the deceased. This order of compulsory retirement is not challenged in this writ petition. The scheme of compassionate appointment debars such appointment being made to dependants of a person on whom a major punishment has been imposed for proved acts of mis-conduct. It is well settled that compassionate appointments can only be made in accordance with the rules and on fulfillment of the conditions prescribed therein. If the Board has, in its wisdom, chosen to deny compassionate appointment to the dependants of deceased employees against whom charges of mis-conduct have been established, it is not for this Court to substitute its views and direct appointment on compassionate grounds. The charges held established in the present case are that of mis- appropriation, may be, temporary misappropriation of public funds, for which, the order of compulsory retirement cannot be said to be disproportionate. I see no reason to interfere with the orders impugned in the writ petition. The writ petition fails and is, accordingly, dismissed. No costs. __________________________ RAMESH RANGANATHAN,J DATE: 30th January, 2008 pnb