HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU WRIT PETITION No. 6394 OF 2003. DATED 18TH AUGUST, 2010. BETWEEN Varahagiri Mangaiah …..Petitioner and Indu7strial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Visakhapatnam and ors …..Respondents. HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU WRIT PETITION No. 6394 OF 2003. ORDER: This Writ Petition is directed against an Award dated 3.12.2002 passed in I.D.No. 151 of 2001 on the ﬁle of the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Visakhapatnam, whereunder the claim petition ﬁled by petitioner under Section 2A(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 to set aside the punishment of removal dated 20.06.2000 and to reinstate him into service with full back wages, continuity of service and attendant beneﬁts was rejected in toto. The petitioner herein is the workman. The Respondent is the Management. It appears, petitioner was initially appointed as Watchman in the ﬁrst respondent-Management with eﬀect from 13.3.1978. Thereafter his services were absorbed as Revenue Cashier/L.D.C., in the respondent- management with eﬀect from 15.4.1980. While he was working in the oﬃce of the Electricity Revenue Oﬃcer, at Amalapuram, he was placed under suspension on 24.1.1998 on the ground that he misappropriated a sum of Rs.20,057/- having collected from a consumer and not accounted the same with the Accounts Section. The Enquiry Oﬃcer, held the petitioner not guilty of the charges levelled against him. The Enquiry Oﬃcer made personal enquiries, in this regard, and found irregularity in issuing PR committed by the petitioner was not wilful, and, the same was under threat. Further it was held that though the delinquent workman is responsible for the irregularity of issuing PR committed by him from his seat, there appears to be no motive on his part, to cheat the Management as he has not ensured accounting for the sum received by him in the concerned ledger with an intention to cheat, except issuing receipt to the party under the forced circumstances as explained by him. Further, on 28.1.1998 itself the entire amount of Rs.20,057/- was made good. However, the disciplinary authority passed an order removing the petitioner from service with eﬀect from 20.6.2000. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner preferred an appeal and the same met with fate of dismissal. Therefore, he raised an Industrial Dispute under Section 2A(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 before the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Visakhapatnam. Though the Enquiry Oﬃcer found the petitioner not guilty of the charges levelled against him, the disciplinary authority, without giving any reason to defer with the report submitted by the Enquiry Oﬃcer and without issuing prior notice to the petitioner calling for any explanation as to why the ﬁndings of the enquiry oﬃcer should not be deferred had come to altogether a diﬀerent conclusion, issued show cause notice and passed the impugned order which is arbitrary and illegal and violative of the principles of natural justice. Even otherwise, without admitting the misconduct, the petitioner to prove himself had remitted the entire amount on 24.1.1998. There was no misuse of the said PR as the same was not entered in the ledger as found by the Enquiry Oﬃcer. For this trivial misconduct on the part of the petitioner, punishment of removal was imposed against him which is disproportionate. The Labour Court also failed to exercise jurisdiction vested in it under Section 11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The respondent-Management ﬁled a detailed counter denying the allegations made by the petitioner. It stated that the workman has committed serious misconduct of misappropriation of the funds of the respondent-Management to an extent of Rs.20,057/-. The said fraud committed by the workman was detected on 22.1.1998. He was kept under suspension and later the workman arranged the payment of the said amount on 24.1.1998 in the account of A.P. TRANSCO vide PR.No. 6843. In the enquiry conducted by the Enquiry Oﬃcer, though charges levelled against the petitioner were proved, but, simply the enquiry oﬃcer held that the petitioner was found not guilty and the said report was not binding on the respondent-Management. The disciplinary authority has taken diﬀerent view since the misconduct committed by the petitioner was grave in nature and therefore, punishment of removal from service was just and proper. Removal order passed by the disciplinary authority, as conﬁrmed by the Labour Court, is based on the material available on record and therefore the Award passed by the Labour Court does not call for any interference by this Court. I have given by earnest consideration to the submissions made by the learned Counsel appearing on either side and perused the impugned order and other material available on record. The facts are not much in dispute. The petitioner had put in more than 32 years of service with the respondent-management. He was suspended from service on 24.1.1998 and on the very same day, the amount purported to be misappropriated was remitted back to the account of the respondent-Management. The Enquiry Oﬃcer found the petitioner not guilty of the charges levelled against him and he had given PR in respect of the amount of Rs.20,057/- under coercion and since he was mislead by the third party. The very passing of the order of removal was not proper on the part of the respondent-management for the misconduct so alleged against the petitioner. I am of the opinion that no loss was caused to the respondent-Management nor any past misconduct was alleged against the petitioner. Admittedly the petitioner had put in 32 years unblemished service in the respondent-management. In view of the fact that the amount was already remitted immediately to the account of the respondent- management and the enquiry oﬃcer found that the alleged PR was executed under coercion or threat, the respondent-management ought to have taken a lenient view in the matter and imposed any other lesser punishment than that of removal from service. In a case of this nature, the removal from service is deﬁnitely said to be shocking disproportionate to that of the misconduct alleged. Therefore, I am of the opinion that the order of removal passed by the disciplinary authority, as conﬁrmed by the Labour Court, is liable to be set aside. Generally speaking in a case of this nature, the matter requires to be remanded to the disciplinary authority for taking appropriate decision afresh. But, now it is more than ten years passed bye, and at this stage if the matter is remitted back, it may not serve any purpose and therefore, I am of the opinion that this matter should be given quietus at this stage itself. For the foregoing discussion, the Writ Petition is disposed of directing the respondent-management to reinstate the petitioner into service with continuity of service, but without backwages and without attendant beneﬁts such as seniority, promotion increments. Further, it is made clear that the period during which the petitioner was out of employment shall be treated as continuous only for the purpose of his retrial beneﬁts including pension etc.,. The Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly. No order as to costs. ------------------------------------ JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU 18T H AUGUST, 2010. Msnr.