Allowed

G.L. Nagabushanam v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC26 Sept 2022WP/3347/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This petition challenged further disciplinary proceedings initiated three years after the petitioner's retirement and after a prior enquiry report was submitted. The Court held such late initiation of enquiry was illegal and arbitrary. It set aside the new proceedings and directed the release of all retirement benefits and the conclusion of pending charges within six weeks.

What did the court decide?

Impugned proceeding set aside; petitioner directed to receive retirement benefits; 1st respondent directed to conclude disciplinary proceedings within six weeks.

G.L. Nagabushanam Vs The State of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Andhra Pradesh HC (2022)

¶1

HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE K. MANMADHA RAO

¶2

I.A.No.2 of 2022 In/and

¶3

WRIT PETITION No.3347 of 2022

¶4

ORDER :

¶5

This petition is filed under Article 226 of the

¶6

Constitution of India for the following relief:-

¶7

“ …to issue a writ order or direction more in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the inaction of the 1^st respondent though the enquiry officer conducted detailed enquiry in to the allegations raised against the petitioner and submitted report vide in proceedings Rc.No.2152/C1/2016, dated 02.03.2017 stating that the charges held not proved even then not concluding the pending disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner wherein issued vide charge memo Rc.No.Ser.1-1/214/2015, Dated 20.05.2015 on the file of the 2^nd respondent, as illegal, arbitrary, against the G.O.Ms.No.679, Dated 01.11.2008 and bad in the eye of Law on the ground of delay and latches and consequently direct the 1^st respondent to conclude the disciplinary proceedings with in a reasonable time by considering the age of the petitioner and accordingly direct the 1^st respondent to release all retirement benefits of the petitioner along with admissible interest and pass such other order or orders … …. ”

¶8

The case of the petitioner is that he was initially appointed as Junior Lecturer on 14.12.1981 and subsequently he was promoted as Principal in the year 2006. While working as such he was retired from service on 31.01.2018 after

¶9

¶10

attaining the age of superannuation. The petitioner while he as working as RIO at Tirupati, he was served with a charge memo vide proceedings Rc.No.Ser.1-1/214/2015, dated 20.05.2015. In response to the same, the petitioner has submitted his explanation and the same was received by the 2^nd respondent on 22.06.2016. However, without considering his explanation, the 2^nd respondent appointed an Enquiry Officer. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed his objections. Thereafter, the RJD, Guntur FAC appointed as an enquiry officer and after a detailed enquiry, he submitted his detailed report on 02.03.2017.

¶11

While the matter stood thus, while the petitioner was working as Principal, he was issued with another chare memo dated 7.4.2016 and the petitioner has submitted his explanation. But the disciplinary authority without considering his reply appointed the Additional Secretary Intermediate Education as the Enquiry officer and thereafter he submitted his report on 28.6.2016 stating that the chares held proved. Basing on the said report, the disciplinary authority issued proceedings dated 17.9.2016 and awarded minor punishment of two annual grade increments without cumulative effect besides recovery of 75% of misappropriation amount of Rs3,26,344/-. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has submitted his

¶12

¶13

representation to the 1^st and 2^nd respondents requesting to set aside the said punishment. But no orders have been passed. Therefore, the petitioner approached the Hon’ble Tribunal by filing O.A.No.1042 of 2017 challenging the punishment orders dated 17.09.2016. The same was disposed of by the Tribunal directed the petitioner to prefer an appeal before the appellate authority within a period of two weeks and on such submission, the 1^st respondent was directed to pass appropriate orders within a period of ten weeks. Though no orders have been passed in the said appeal, the petitioner constrained to approach this Court by way of filing WP No.15061 of 2020 and the same was disposed of on 27.08.2020 directed the 1^st respondent to dispose of the appeal and also settle all the retirement benefits, in accordance with law, as per his entitlement, within three months. Since the order of this Court has not been complied with by the 1^st respondent therein, the petitioner has preferred a Contempt case vide C.C. No.516 of 2021 and the same is pending. While complying with the said orders, the appeal was rejected by the 1^st respondent vide Memo dated 12.06.2021. In view of the said rejection, the disciplinary proceedings attained its finality. As the petitioner has reached to stagnation of his salary, the said punishment could not affect

¶14

¶15

on his increments, he constrained to file the present writ petition.

¶16

Counter affidavit is filed by the 2^nd respondent while denying al the averments made in the petition contended that the petitioner has intentionally avoiding the inquiry and not cooperating with the department to finalize the charges pending against him. Mover, the Government has sanctioned Provisional Pension to the retired employee. Hence the contention of the petitioners is totally baseless and false. Hence, prayed to dismiss the writ petition.

¶17

Reply affidavit is filed by the petitioner while reiterating the averments made in the petition, denied all the averments made in the counter affidavit filed by the 2^nd respondent. It is further contended that the 2^nd respondent specifically made allegation that the petitioner intentionally avoiding the inquiry and not cooperating to finalize departmental enquiry, which is untenable and baseless. Without showing any proof that the petitioner caused for delay, making such statement, is nothing but misleading this Hon’ble Court. It is further stated that the appointment of enquiry officer is not served to the petitioner and also he is not received any notice from the enquiry office. After filing of the counter in

¶18

¶19

the said case the petitioner came to know about the enquiry office. It is further stated that the petitioner is retired employee, unless and until any proceedings are served to me, the petitioner is unable to respond. One hand the respondents playing delay tactics and other hand blame through on the petitioner. Therefore the action of the respondents is nothing but harassing the petitioner like anything. If such procedure is entertained by this Court the authorities are encouraged to that of harassing the retired employees without settling the retirement benefits for years together. In view of the above, prayed this Court to give a direction to the respondents as stated supra.

¶20

Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader for Services-III appearing for the respondents.

¶21

During pendency of this writ petition, the petitioner has filed I.A No.2 of 2022 seeking to amend the main prayer as “declaring the impugned proceedings Rc.No.EHE0511028/42/2020-SER.I.IEm dated 26.11.2020 on the file of the 2^nd respondent as illegal arbitrary, contrary to the Rule 21 of APCS (CCA) Rules 1991 against the G.O.Ms.No.679 dated

¶22

¶23

01.11.2008 and also bad in the eye of law on the ground of delay and latches and set aside the same….”

¶24

Learned counsel for the petitioner reiterating all the averments made in the petition and contended that the petitioner is a retired employee and a regular enquiry conducted against him as per Rule 20 of APCS (CCA) Rules 1991 and report submitted by the enquiry officer way back on 02.03.2017, at this stage, that too, after filing of CC, the respondents wanted to conduct further enquiry. Though the charges are held proved the respondents may be proceeded with the enquiry. This attitude of the respondents is very much harsh and untenable. The employer cannot act in this manner against the retired employee.

¶25

Learned counsel further argued that the regular enquiry is ordered under Rule 20 of APCS (CCA) Rules 1991 and accordingly completed the same and thereto submitted report by the enquiry officer to the disciplinary authority, there are no special rules to conduct further enquiry at this belated stage as per their wish. If any, after laps of 3 years of retirement any enquiry against the retired employee is bad in the eye of law. He further submits that if the disciplinary authority is intending to disagree with the enquiry report, can be issued descent not

¶26

¶27

under Rule 20 of APCS (CCA) Rules 1991 to the charged officer by giving its own tentative reasons fro disagreement but at this stage invoking the said provision is untenable. The other provision is remanding for further enquiry, at this stage, after lapse of 3 years of regular enquiry, that too, against the retired employee invoking the said provisions does not arise due to the delay and laches on the part of the respondents.

¶28

On the other hand learned Government Pleader contended that as per the instructions of Commissioner of Intermediate Education, the Regional Joint Director of Intermediate Education, Guntur has appointed as Inquiry Officer vide proceedings Rc.No.EHE05-11028/42/2020-SER.IIe, dated 26.11.2020 and as per the proceedings of the RJDIE, Guntur the petitioner has intentionally avoiding for conducting inquiry and he has not cooperating with the department to finalize the charges. He further argued that as per Rule 9(2)(a) of the A.P. Revised Pension Rules 1980 if the proceedings had been initiated by an authority subordinate to the Government such authority will submit the report of the inquiry authority, after recording its findings to the Government, as the power to pass orders in such cases vests in the Government Under Rule 9 of the Pension Rule. He further argued that as per the request

¶29

¶30

made by the 2^nd respondent the Government has issued G.O.Rt.No.115 dated 11.05.2021 stating that under Rule 52(1)(a) of A.P. Revised Pension Rules, 1980, the Government accorded sanction for payment of provisional pension @ 75% of normal pension entitlement to the petitioner from the next date of his retirement pending finalization of the disciplinary proceedings against him. The same was also communicated to the petitioner for further course of action.

¶31

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and on considering the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner, this Court is of the considered opinion that, declaring the impugned proceedings Rc.No.EHE05-11028/42/2020-SER.I.IE, dated 26.11.2020 issued by the 2^nd respondent as illegal and arbitrary.

¶32

Accordingly, the impugned proceedings in Rc.No.EHE05-11028/42/2020-SER.I.IE, dated 26.11.2020 issued by the 2^nd respondent are hereby set aside. Further, the 1^st respondent is directed to conclude the disciplinary proceedings in Rc.No.2152/C1/2016, dated 02.03.2017 of the 2^nd respondent by giving opportunity to the petitioner and pass appropriate orders, in accordance with law. Further, the respondents are also directed to release all the retiral benefits to

¶33

¶34

the petitioner as per his entitlement. The entire exercise shall be completed within a period of six (06) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶35

In the result, the I.A.No.2 of 2022 is allowed. Consequently, the W.P.No.3347 of 2022 is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶36

Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, in this Writ Petition shall stand closed.

¶37

______________________________ DR. K. MANMADHA RAO, J.

¶38

Date : 26-09-2022 Gvl

¶39

¶40

HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE K. MANMADHA RAO

¶41

WRIT PETITION No.3347 OF 2022

¶42

Date : 26-09-2022

¶43

Gvl

G.L. Nagabushanam v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

G.L. Nagabushanam v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Padiri Kumar Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

S Chandrasekhar Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Mortha Bala Prakash Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Y.Giridhara Rao, Vs The District Collector Cum Chairman

Gumpula Ruth Evangeline Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

B Srinivasa Rao Vs the Unit Run Canteen National Cadet Corps