L IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: MONDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO" WRIT APPEAL NO: 1433 OF 2004 Writ Appeal under Clause 15^of the Letters Patent dated 01-07-2004 in WP 4574 of 1994 on the file of the High Court. — Between: 1. Visakhapatnam Port Trust, rep.by its Chairman, Visakhapatnam 2. Chief Mechanical Engineer, Visakhapatnam Port Trust, Visakhapatnam ...APPELLANTS/RESPONDENTS AMARAVATI against the order AND Ch.Mohana Rao, S/o Satyanarayana, Hindu, 42 years, D.No.7/266, Prasanthinagar, Gopalapatnam, Visakhapatnam -27 ...RESPONDENT LA. NO: 1 OF 2004(WAMP. NO: 2634 OF 2004) Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased suspend the operation of the order in W.P.No.4574/94 dated 01-07-2004 during the pendency of the above Appeal. LA. NO: 2 OF 2004rWAMP. NO: 3923 OF 2004) Between: Ch.Mohana Rao Prasanthinagar, Gopalapatnam, Visakhapatnam -27 S/o Satyanarayana, Hindu, 53 years, D. No. 7/266, ...PETITIONER/RESPONDENT AND 1. Visakhapatnam Port Trust, rep.by its Chairman, Visakhapatnam 2. Chief Mechanical Engineer, Visakhapatnam Port Trust, Visakhapatnam ...RESPONDENT/APPELLANT^ Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to vacate the interim stay granted on 25/10/2004 in W.A.M.P.No. 2634 of 2004 in W.A. No. 1433 of 2004. ^ Counsel for the Appellants: SRI RAVITEJA PADIRI ^ Counsel for the Respondent: DR. P B VIJAY KUMAR REPRESENTING SMT. A V S LAXMI The Court made the following: JUDGEMENT APHC010601772004 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3526] MONDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO WRIT APPEAL No.1433 of 2004 Between: I.Visakhapatnam Port Trust, rep. by its Chairman, Visakhapatnam 2. Chief Mechanical Engineer, Visakhapatnam Port Trust Visakhapatnam ...Appellants AND 1.Ch Mohana Rao, S/o Satyanarayana, D.No.7/266, Prasanthinagar Gopalapatnam, Visakhapatnam -27 ...Respondent Counsel for the Appellants; 1.RAVITEJA PADIRI Counsel for the Respondent: 1.AVS LAXMI The Court made the following JUDGMENT: (per NJS,J) Heard Mr.Ravi Teja Padiri, learned counsel for the appellants. Also heard Dr.P.B.Vijay Kumar, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent. The present Writ Appeal is filed against the orders of the Learned Single Judge dated 21.7.2004 in Writ Petition No.4574 of 1994. 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as they are arrayed in the writ petition. 3. 2 WA_1433_200i^ \ . The writ petitioner aggrieved by an order of the respondent No.1 dated 17.2.1994 confirming the penalty imposed by the Disciplinary Authority of removal from the service, filed the said writ petition seeking to quash the same and for a consequential direction to reinstate him into service with back-wages, continuity of service and attendant benefits. 4. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner, who was working as Electrician Grade-Ill, due to ill-health, absented from the duty from 21.8.1993 to 21.9.1993 and a charge memo dated 04.9.1993 was issued. The petitioner submitted explanation dated 29.9.1993 admitting the charges of unauthorized absence and requested the Management to condone the absence. Not satisfied with the explanation, an enquiry was ordered and on receipt of the enquiry report dated 26.10.1993, a notice was issued to the petitioner. While considering the explanation submitted by the petitioner, vide Proceedings dated 10.12.1993, the Disciplinary Authority i.e., the respondent No.2 imposed penalty of removal from service for unauthorized absence from duty by the petitioner. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed appeal on 14.12.1993 before the respondent No.1 and the order of removal was confirmed. 5. In the writ petition, challenging the order of removal from service, it was submitted that the punishment imposed is grossly disproportionate to the charges leveled and as the petitioner had accepted the charges, a lesser punishment ought to have imposed instead of removal from service. On behalf of the respondents, it was argued that the petitioner was a habitual absentee, orders of censure were issued on several occa,sions but the petitioner had not changed his attitude. Therefore, the order of the Disciplinary Authority as confirmed by the Appellate Authority is valid and justified. 6. 3 WA_1433_200^i|' 7. The learned Single Judge after appreciating the rival contentions, by following the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Union of India V. Giriraj Sharma'' had opined that as the charges leveled against the petitioner that he is a habitual absentee, he should be visited with lesser punishment but not with the punishment of removal from service. The learned Single Judge, while setting aside the orders impugned in the writ petition, directed the respondent No.1 to consider the case of the petitioner for re-appointment by demoting him by two grades and pass appropriate orders within a period of six weeks. It was also made clear that the petitioner would not be entitled for any back-wages except to continuity of service and other attendant benefits. In this appeal, the learned counsel for the appellants, inter alia contended that the order of the learned Single Judge is not sustainable in Law, more particularly as the respondent/writ petitioner is a habitual absentee and his unauthorized absence to the duties resulted in serious inconvenience to day-to-day works. He submits that the Disciplinary Authority and the Appellate Authority had considered the matter in detail, assigned cogent reasons while passing the order of removal from service, ) and the learned Single Judge without appreciating the same, passed the order under challenge and the same is not sustainable. 8. On the other hand, Dr.P.B.Vijay Kumar, learned Senior Counsel while refuting the said contentions submitted that in fact against the orders of the learned Single Judge, the respondent/writ petitioner filed Writ Appeal No.1118 of 2005 and the same was dismissed by a Division Bench of the erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad on 19.7.2005. He submits that as the order of the learned Single Judge was confirmed, the present appeal is liable to be dismissed. 9. AIR 1994 SC 215 4 WA_1433_200^^ This Court has considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for both parties. As seen from the orders passed in Writ Appeal No.1118 of 2005, it is discernible that the Division Bench after hearing Visakhapatnam Port Trust/the appellant herein passed the following order: 10. “Contextual facts depict that the reason assigned by the 1® respondent in imposing the punishment of removal from service on the petitioner-appellant is that he is a habitual absentee. But the contention of the petitioner-appellant is that only due to his ill health, he was absented from the duties and also admitted the charges framed against him. It is conspicuously clear that the petitioner-appellant is a habitual absentee. Without intimation and prior sanction of leave, would certainly cause inconvenience to the work of the organization, and if that being the case a lenient view has to be taken while imposing the punishment. But the punishment imposed by the 1®’ respondent is disproportionate to the nature of the charges levelled against him. Hence, the findings as arrived at by the learned single Judge are justified. In the backdrop of the facts and circumstances, as recited above, we are of the view that there is no reason now to interfere with the reasoned order passed by the learned single Judge.” 11. No reasons are forthcoming as to why filing of the present appeal was not brought to the notice of the Division Bench when W.A. No.1118 of 2005 was taken up for consideration. It also appears that against the orders passed in W.A. No.1118 of 2005, no further appeal or review was filed. Be that as it may. Though the learned counsel for the appellants sought to impress upon this Court that the order under appeal is not sustainable, on a consideration of the same, which in fact was confirmed in the appeal filed by the respondent, we are not inclined to take a different view. The reasons for the absence of the respondent/writ petitioner is on health grounds and in such circumstances, as opined by the learned Single Judge that a lesser punishment rather than the punishment of removal from service would suffice. Considering the matter in its entirety, we are of the view that the order under challenge warrants no interference. 12. \ 5 WA_1433_209gf ■y 13. In the aforesaid view of the matter and for the reasons alike in the order referred to above, the writ appeal is dismissed, observe that this order would not preclude the appellants to finalize the other disciplinary proceedings, if any, in accordance with Law. No order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. Needless to Sd/- M.RAMESH BABU DEPUTY REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// To, SECTfOiq OFFICER 1. One CC to Sri Raviteja Padiri, Advocate [OPUC] - 2. One CC to Smt. A V S Laxmi, Advocate [OPUC] 3. Three CD Copies TF 0 HIGH COURT DATED; 10/03/2025 JUDGMENT WA.No.1433 of 2004 ^OFANDfl^-fS t3 2 1 MAR 2025 m . Current Section ?vf!§'SPATC^,^5' DISMISSING THE W.A., WITHOUT COSTS