T. Janardhan vs Andhra Pradesh State Electricity Board and Others

T.N.C. Rangarajan, J.—This petition seeks a writ of certiorari to quash the order of the Industrial Tribunal, Godavarikhani, Karimnagar District, upholding the dismissal of the petitioner.

The petitioner was appointed as helper in Andhra Pradesh State Electricity Board in May, 1979 and was promoted as Bill Collector from 4-6-1980. On 17-7-1982, he was transferred to Khanapur. He was prosecuted for the offence u/s 376 of the Indian Penal Code for an incident which happened on 11-4-1983; but he was acquitted. The second incident occurred with respect to the same person on 26-4-1983, and the first information report was given on 28-4-1983. He was again prosecuted for the offence u/s 354 of the Indian Penal Code and he was convicted on 8-11-1985 by the Assistant Sessions Judge. Thereafter, the mother of the person made a complaint on 25-12-1985, which was forwarded to the Board. On 21-3-1986, the conviction was confirmed by the Additional Sessions Judge, who modified the sentence to a fine of Rs. 2,000/-. While doing so, he observed:

However, on the question of sentence, as I find the accused is a Government servant, the imprisonment would result in dismissal from service which may be an unduly harsh punishment flowing from an offence u/s 354 of IPC, which is punishable with imprisonment or fine. A heavy fine probably would meet the ends of justice and so with provision to make compensation to the victim. Though an insult to woman cannot be compensated in terms of made considering the poor condition of P.Ws. 1 and 2,1 feel that a compensation of Rs. 2,000/- would be a certain solace.

This was confirmed by the High Court by order dated 15-4-1987 reducing the fine to Rs. 1,000/-. On 18-9-1989, an enquiry was initiated by the first respondent and an officer was appointed to go into the complaint. On 11-1-1990, the service of the petitioner was terminated. The petitioner appealed to the Tribunal and by order dated 17-4-1990, his termination was upheld.

Learned Counsel for the petitioner has made three points regarding the decision of the Tribunal. The first is that even if the termination was based on the conviction by the criminal Court, the termination relied also on the enquiry report which was vitiated by not giving a copy of the report to the petitioner and an opportunity to meet the findings in the enquiry report. Secondly, it was submitted that Regulation 10 (5)(a) of APSEB Employees Discipline and appeal Regulations, which provided that no opportunity need be given where the termination is based on a criminal conviction, was opposed to the decisions of the Supreme Court where it has been held that before awarding punishment, opportunity is a must. Particularly it was submitted that the Tribunal had not applied its mind to the observations of the Additional Sessions Judge which indicated that even though the petitioner was convicted, the incident itself was taken to be almost a family affair. The third point raised is that even after his acquittal for prosecution u/s 376 of the Indian Penal Code, the petitioner was allowed to remain in the house with the same girl, in which the second incident was supposed to have occurred. It was submitted that this was against the normal human conduct, which had indicated the close relationship between the parties and also supported the allegation of the petitioner that there was pressure on him to marry that girl and upon his refusal he was framed with a false case. It was submitted that in these circumstances, there was no justification for depriving the petitioner of his livelihood because of an incident of family quarrel.

The learned Counsel for the respondents, however, submitted that conviction by criminal Court for the offence u/s 354 of the Indian Penal Code was a serious matter affecting the character of the person, and the respondent is a public body and it cannot keep on its rolls a person who was convicted for an offence involving moral turpitude. It was also submitted that the termination was based on the conviction by the criminal Court and therefore, no opportunity has required to be given with respect to the enquiry or with respect to the punishment proposed.

I have considered the submissions and I have also perused several decisions relied on by the petitioner. It is now well settled that even if opportunity need not be given with respect to the punishment, when the disciplinary proceedings is based on the conviction by a criminal Court, the authority awarding the punishment is required to examine the adequacy of the penalty with respect to the offence said to have been committed by the employee. Keeping in mind the observations of the Supreme Court in Union of India (UOI) Vs. Parma Nanda, as well as die decision in Shankar Dass Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Another, which lay down that the right to impose penalty carries with it the duty to act justly, I am of the view that the routine confirmation of the termination without taking into account the observations by the learned Additional Sessions Judge in convicting the petitioner, was unsustainable. As discussed above, even though the petitioner was convicted for the offence u/s 354 of the Indian Penal Code, the background indicates that it was a matter within the family since the person concerned was also said to be related to the petitioner. Thers is no evidence to indicate that the character of the petitioner was of that nature that he cannot be entrusted with any work relating to carrying out of his duty as Bill Collector. I am of the opinion that in the circumstances of the case, the termination of the petitioner''s employment based solely on the conviction, ignoring the observations of the Additional Sessions Judge, was not fair and just, and opposed to the dictum that the right to impose punishment should carry with it the responsibility to act justly. The Regulations indicate lesser punishment viz., reduction to a lower rank in the seniority list or to a lower post or time-scale not being lower than that to which he was directly recruited, whether in the same class of service, or in another class of service, or to a lower stage in a time-scale, as one of the major punishments. Since I am of the view that the petitioner should not be removed from service, I consider that it would be proper if the petitioner is reduced to a lower stage in the time scale applicable to him, by way of punishment. In selecting this punishment, I am also keeping in mind the fact that the petitioner was out of job for four years and this reinstatement will not entitle him to any back wages. However, the period of absence may be suitably regularised. Therefore, modifying the award of the Industrial Tribunal, 1 direct the first respondent to pass an order reducing the petitioner''s rank to an appropriate lower stage in the time-scale and reinstate him after regularising the period of absence without any back wages. Writ petition is allowed. No costs.