P.K. VEERABHADRA Vs. TOBACCO BOARD AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner was working as Senior Grading Officer with the respondent-Tobacco Board. By order dated 08.02.2010 (Annexure-A), the Chairman of the Tobacco Board, imposed penalty on the petitioner reverting him from the post of Senior Grading Officer to the lower post of Field Officer for a period of three years from the date of the said order. It was specified therein that on completion of three years period, the petitioner shall be restored to the post of Senior Grading Officer and he will regain his seniority among the Senior Grading Officers existing at that time. The said order had become final as there was no appeal filed. For the same charges on which the order dated 08.02.2010 had been passed, criminal proceedings had been initiated and the matter was investigated by the CBI, which had submitted a charge sheet against the petitioner and one other person. The charge sheet was with regard to the same issue i.e., misappropriation of office money amounting to over Rs.6.00 lakhs. By order dated 01.12.2011 passed by the CBI Court, the petitioner as well as the other person had been convicted. In appeal, the High Court passed order on 18.01.2012 staying the impugned judgment of conviction.

(2.) In this background, when on completion of the period of three years from 08.02.2010, the petitioner was not restored back on the post of Senior Grading Officer (as had been directed by order dated 08.02.2010) the petitioner filed a W.P.No.37468/2014 which was disposed of, without issuing notice to the respondent-Board, with the direction that the representation of the petitioner dated 13.06.2013 with regard to restoration of the petitioner on the post of Senior Grading Officer, be decided within 12 weeks. Pursuant thereto, the impugned order 16.09.2014 has been passed by the respondent- Board whereby the representation has been rejected on the ground that the CBI Court has convicted the petitioner on 01.12.2011 and that the request of the petitioner for restoration on the post of Senior Grading Officer would be considered only after the outcome of the appeal filed by the petitioner in the High Court. Challenging the said order, this writ petition has been filed.

(3.) Heard Sri H.M. Muralidhar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri S.Kalyan Basavaraj, learned counsel for the respondents and perused the record.