MANAGEMENT OF SECUNDERABAD CLUB Vs. K.SUBRAHMANYAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The case of petitioner - Management of Secunderabad Club is that the 1st Respondent while working as Cashier committed certain cash irregularities by not accounting the summer camp fees collected from the members and an amount of Rs.7000.00 was not accounted, when enquired, he shouted against HOD in a gross insubordinate manner. To the show cause notice dtd. 2/8/2018, explanation dtd. 7/8/2018 was submitted admitting his behaviour. Thereafter, on enquiry, the Enquiry Officer submitted report finding the charges partly proved. Therefore, considering the gravity of the misconduct, the 1st Respondent was terminated by order dtd. 8/12/2018. On 12/12/2018, the 1st respondent received Rs.6,52,212.00 under three different cheques towards full and final settlement of account, without any protest and encashed the same. Thereafter, he filed a claim (S.E.No. 5 of 2009) before the 2nd Respondent suppressing the said fact. The said Authority vide order dtd. 16/6/2003 granted Rs.3,00,000.00 as compensation in lieu of reinstatement and back wages. Aggrieved thereby, petitioner filed Second Appeal No. 4 of 2023 before the 3rd Respondent Authority by depositing Rs.3,00,000.00 ordered by the 2nd Respondent Authority. Similarly, the 1st Respondent also filed S.A.No. 3 of 2023 against the order of awarding compensation. The Authority passed the common order dtd. 9/1/2024 directing petitioner to reinstate the 1st Respondent into service with full back wages, attendant benefits and continuity of service and also directed them to pay 9% interest till the date of actual payment. Hence, the present Writ Petition.

(2.) Learned counsel for petitioner Sri C. Niranjan Rao submits that the 3rd Respondent Authority ought to have considered that misappropriation of funds is a serious misconduct, hence, ought not to have granted reinstatement in a routine manner. According to learned counsel, petitioner club is a non-profit organization with about 7000 members; it was established in 1878 by the British Government for their Army officials in a private premise and Entry to the club premises was restricted to the members and their families and no outsider can come to the club as a matter of right; therefore, it is evident that Petitioner club does not come under the purview of the Telangana State Shops and Establishment Act, 1988 and the provisions of the said Act are not applicable to it. Therefore, the Authority does not have jurisdiction to entertain the above Applications. The said issue, though raised, was not properly answered by the 3rd respondent, hence, the impugned order is liable to be set aside.

(3.) While issuing notice, this Court, on 26/4/2024, granted interim suspension of the order impugned.