IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE FOURTEENTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G.BHAVANI PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO : 22153 of 2008 Between: 1 Union of India, Rep. by its Secretary (DP), Ministry of Defence, New Delhi - 110 001. 2 The Director General, Ordnance Factory Board, 10A, S.K. Bose Road, KOLKATA-700 001. 3 The Senior General Manager, Ordance Factory, Bhandra - 441 906, Maharastra. 4 The General Manager, Ordnance Factory Medak, Yeddumailaram - 502 205, Medak District, Andhra Pradesh. ..... PETITIONERS AND Shri G. Satyanarayana, Ordnance Factory Medak, Yeddumailaram - 502 205, Medak District, Andhra Pradesh. .....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 issue a Writ in the nature of Certiorari or any other appropriate Writ, order or direction calling for the records pertaining to O.A.No. 771 of 2007 in order dt. 30-06-2008 and quash the same and declare the same as illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.A.RAJASHEKAR REDDY (ASST SOLICITOR GEN) Counsel for the Respondent: None appeared. The Court made the following : ORDER: (Per GM, J) Aggrieved by the order dated 30.06.2008 passed in O.A.No.771 of 2007 by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench, Hyderabad, the present writ petition is filed. The petitioners herein are the respondents and the respondent herein is the applicant in O.A.No.771 of 2007. For the sake of convenience, the parties herein are referred to as arrayed in O.A. The applicant, while working as Assistant Foreman/Electrical in the respondent organization, was issued with a charge memo dated 18.03.2006 on the ground of gross misconduct i.e., sleeping while on duty in violation of Rule 3(1)(ii) & (iii) of CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964”. Pursuant thereto, he submitted an explanation dated 12.04.2006 denying the charge to the third respondent, who was nominated as Inquiry Officer to inquire into the charge framed against him, but the second respondent, as disciplinary authority, passed an order dated 09.02.2007 imposing a penalty of withholding one increment when next due for a period of one year in the time scale of pay Rs.6500/-200/-10,500/-. Aggrieved by the same, he preferred an appeal to the first respondent- appellate authority and the same was rejected on 16.08.2007, against which, he filed O.A. No.771 of 2007 and the same was allowed by the order dated 30.06.2008 setting aside the charge framed against him. Hence, the present writ petition. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the applicant had committed gross misconduct by sleeping while on duty and was away from his work place without prior permission from his superiors. He further contended that the Tribunal ought not to have set aside the charge memo issued against the applicant, as it was issued as per the prescribed procedure and rules. The applicant was charge sheeted alleging that he slept while on duty and left his work place without prior permission of his superiors. After considering the explanation submitted by him, the second respondent had conducted a regular enquiry and imposed a penalty of withholding of one increment when next due for a period of one year in the time scale of pay of Rs.6500/-200/- 10500/- and the same was confirmed by the appellate authority. The Tribunal, after appreciating the entire material and evidence on record, observed that the charge of misconduct i.e., sleeping while on duty, is not specific with regard to the period during which he was sleeping while on duty. It was also observed that as per the Inquiry report, when the applicant came out of the room, he was in normal condition and there was no visible symptom of sleeping. It is also not in dispute that the applicant reported at 09.30 hrs, distributed jobs, attended the electrical complaints as well as meeting of the Chairperson. Therefore, the question of petitioner not signing in the inspection report and not attending the meeting does not arise. Thus, the Tribunal has rightly considered the matter and set aside the charge framed against the petitioner. Having regard to the nature of the charge, the penalty of withholding of one increment when next due for a period of one year was quite disproportionate. Hence, the award passed by the Tribunal does not suffer from infirmity warranting interference by this Court in exercise of its certiorari jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The Writ Petition is devoid of any merit and the same is accordingly dismissed. No costs. _____________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J ____________________ G.BHAVANI PRASAD, J Date:14.10.2008 sj ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1.2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{SPJS}