Disposed

Hanumanthu Krishna Rao, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC8 Jul 2024WP/7266/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court directed the respondents to conclude pending disciplinary proceedings against a retired petitioner within three months, holding that inordinate delay and non-action on inquiry reports bar continued non-settlement of retirement benefits.

What did the court decide?

Respondents directed to conclude inquiries and pass final orders within three months; if not concluded, proceedings will lapse and pension papers must be processed immediately.

Hanumanthu Krishna Rao, Vs The State… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Andhra Pradesh HC (2024)

¶1

APHC010137652024

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

¶3

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶4

[3331]

¶5

TUESDAY,THE NINTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶6

PRESENT

¶7

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI

¶8

WRIT PETITION NO: 7266 of 2024

¶9

Between:

¶10

Hanumanthu Krishna Rao

¶11

...PETITIONER

¶12

AND

¶13

The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others

¶14

...RESPONDENT(S)

¶15

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶16

1.POODATTU AMARENDER

¶17

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶18

1.GP FOR SERVICES II

¶19

The Court made the following:

¶20

ORDER

¶21

The Writ Petition is filed seeking the following relief:

¶22

“ … to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus to declare the action of the Respondents in not settling the Pension, Gratuity, CVP and other retirement benefits to the Petitioner on the ground of pendency of disciplinary proceedings and making inordinate delay in concluding the disciplinary proceedings as illegal, arbitrary, discriminatory and violative of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently, direct the Respondents to conclude the disciplinary proceedings against the Petitioner,

¶23

Page 2 of 5

¶24

forthwith as per the time schedule fixed by the Government vide G.O.Rt.No.679 (GAD), dt 01.11.2008, (or) drop the disciplinary proceedings as per the settled Law and further release Pension, Gratuity, CVP and other retirement benefits to the Petitioner, forthwith and further pay the interest on the delayed payment of Pension and other benefits …”

¶25

Heard Sri P.Amarender, learned counsel for petitioner, Sri T.Bhimanna, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Services-II for respondents 1 & 2 and Smt.K.Swarna Seshu, learned standing counsel for 3^rd respondent.

¶26

Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that petitioner was retired on 30.09.2018 on attaining the age of superannuation. At the time of his retirement, four charge memos are pending against him in the following cases:

¶27

A. Govt. Memo No.537/Vig.D1/2017-1 BCW(VIG) Dept., dt:06.04.2017 read with charge memo Rc.No.E/1045/2017, dt:06.06.2017 .

¶28

B. Govt. Memo No.2612/Vig.D1/2015 BCW(VIG) Dept., dated 14.05.2018 read with charge memo No.E/2824/2017, dt:13.06.2018 .

¶29

C. Govt. Memo No.2611/Vig.D1/2015-2 BCW(VIG) Dept., dated 08.09.2017 read with charge memo No.E/2824/2017, dt:31.07.2018 .

¶30

D. Govt. Memo No.BCW01-11021(50)/1/2018-1 BCW(VIG.D) Dept., dated 01.05.2018.

¶31

Learned counsel for petitioner would further submit that in respect of Charge Memos vide (B) and (C) above, the Government issued G.O.Rt.No.222 BCW(D) Department dated 24.08.2023 and

¶32

Page 3 of 5

¶33

G.O.Rt.No.220 BCW(D) Department dated 24.08.2023 respectively and dropped further action against the petitioner. He would submit that in respect of Charge Memo vide (A) above, the inquiry was concluded and the inquiry officer submitted report on 24.05.2018 holding that charge against the petitioner was not proved. Learned counsel would also submit that in respect of Charge Memo vide (D) above, the District Collector, Srikakulam addressed letter to the Director, BC Welfare, A.P., Vijayawada vide Rc.No.A1/174/BCW/2016 dated 05.05.2022 intimating that charge against the petitioner has not been proved and requested to drop further action. He would also submit that notwithstanding the inquiry report dated 24.05.2018 in respect of Charge memo vide (A) and the communication of the District Collector to the Director of BC Welfare dated 05.02.2022 in respect of Charge Memo (D) above , the authorities are not passing any orders. He would also submit that as per G.O.Ms.No.679 General Administration (Service-C) Department dated 01.11.2008, the inquiry ought to have been completed within a period of three months.

¶34

Per contra , learned Assistant Government Pleader for Services-II would submit that out of four charge memos, proceedings were dropped in respect of two charge memos and in respect of other two charge

¶35

Page 4 of 5

¶36

memos, proceedings are pending before the concerned authority. He would submit that the authority will pass appropriate orders.

¶37

As seen from the material available on record, there is no dispute that at the time of petitioner’s retirement on 30.09.2018, four charge memos are pending against him. Out of which, in respect of Charge Memos (B) and (C) above, proceedings were dropped by the Government. In respect of Charge Memo (A) above, the inquiry officer submitted report on 24.05.2018 holding that charge against the petitioner was not proved. In respect of Charge Memo (D) above, the District Collector, Srikakulam addressed letter dated 05.02.2022 to the Director, BC Welfare requesting to drop further action.

¶38

The Government by issuing G.O.Ms.No.679 General Administration (Service-C) Department dated 01.11.2008 fixed the time schedule for completing the inquiries. As per the said G.O., the enquiry shall be concluded within 3 months and 6 months in simple and complicated cases, respectively. The G.O. further indicates that the Competent Authority, after receipt of the inquiry report shall conclude the disciplinary proceedings within 6 months of its initiation and in case of abnormal delay in conducting the disciplinary proceedings, action shall be initiated against concerned inquiring authority. Thus, the authority, ought to have passed appropriate orders in respect of other two charge

¶39

Page 5 of 5

¶40

memos also. Instead the authority concerned squat on the report of inquiry officer.

¶41

In view of the same, this Court deems it proper to direct the respondents to pass appropriate orders in respect of Charge Memos (A) and (D) above, keeping in view of time schedule fixed in G.O.Ms.No.679 dated 01.11.2008.

¶42

Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of directing the respondents 1 and 2 to conclude the inquiry in all respects and pass final orders within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. It is made clear that if the proceedings are not concluded within the said stipulated period, they will lapse automatically and no further proceedings shall be continued or taken against the petitioner. Depending on the order of the inquiry, the pension papers of the petitioner should be processed without further delay. No costs.

¶43

As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.

¶44

__________________________ JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI

¶45

PVD

Hanumanthu Krishna Rao, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hanumanthu Krishna Rao, 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Amballa Srinivasa Rao Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

D.Yesanna, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Sri Ramadasu Trimurthulu Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

P.Karunakara Raju Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

Afzal Shaw, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

D Dwarakanath Naidu Vs the State of Ap