Dismissed

Gorthi Viswanatham v. The Government of Andhra Pradesh

Telangana HC17 Apr 2012WP/10796/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court dismissed a writ petition challenging the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal's refusal to interfere with the rejection of the petitioner's application for encashment of earned leave. The court held that pending disciplinary charges regarding financial irregularities warranted withholding the leave encashment until an enquiry concluded.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed; no order as to costs.

Gorthi Viswanatham Vs The Government of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2012)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY

¶2

WRIT PETITION No.10796 of 2012

¶3

ORDER: (per Hon’ble Sri Justice G.Krishna Mohan Reddy)

¶4

In this writ petition the order passed in O.A.No.737 of 2011 dated 9.3.2012 on the file of the A.P. Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad is assailed.

¶5

The factual aspects of the case are as follows. The petitioner worked as an employee of Agricultural Marketing Services of the State Government under the control of the first respondent-Government. He retired from the service on 30.4.2010, by which time the following charges were pending against him. (a) He was trapped by the Anti Corruption Bureau (ACB) authorities on 15.5.2009 for demanding and accepting bribe of Rs.2,00,000/-, following which he was placed under suspension which continued till the date of his retirement, in respect of which the Government accorded sanction to prosecute him vide G.O.Rt.No.254 A&C (Vig.II) Department dated 8.10.2009 and a charge sheet was filed in the case before the concerned ACB Court. (b) He has been in possession of assets disproportionate to known sources of his income in respect of which authorization was given to the Inspector of Police (ACB) for filing an application in the Court of Additional Special Judge of SPE & ACB Cases, Hyderabad for attachment of his properties worth Rs.74,22,963/-. (c) A charge sheet was issued against him for violation of Rule 9(7) of A.P. Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1964 for not filing annual property statements in respect of which JDM(V) was appointed as Enquiry

¶6

Officer vide Memo No.1396/Vig.II/ 2009-1 dated 5.11.2010 to conduct necessary enquiry and file his report, which is pending. (d) While working as Selection Grade Secretary, Agricultural Marketing Committee, Kavali and Kovur, he committed irregularities by drawing Rs.5,50,000/- and Rs.1,90,000/- on the premise of conducting Rythu Sadassulu without following relevant norms and procedures, in respect of which, articles of charge were framed and issued vide G.O.Rt.No.1123 A&C(Vig.I) Department dated 10.9.2009 and the corresponding enquiry has been pending.

¶7

Admittedly, he was granted only provisional pension following his retirement, which appears to be on the ground of pendency of the charges. He filed applications dated 10.9.2010 and 17.11.2011, for sanction of encashment of his Earned Leave following his retirement, before the first respondent, who was competent to sanction it. The representations were sent to the third respondent for consideration, but the plea was rejected in view of the said charges.

¶8

Therefore, consequently the petitioner filed O.A. assailing the action of the first respondent in sending the applications to the third respondent for necessary action on the ground that the first respondent himself got competency to dispose of the applications and to direct the first respondent to pass necessary orders to sanction the encashment of earned leave and directing the fourth respondent to order payment of it. The petitioner before the Tribunal took the plea that no financial irregularities or commitments involved under any of the charges and with regards to the allegation of drawing huge amounts at the fag end of financial year without following norms and procedure, he submitted

¶9

his explanation and no corresponding action was taken hence. But the Tribunal dismissed the O.A. on the ground that clear allegations of financial irregularities in drawing the amounts of Rs.5,50,000/- and Rs.1,90,000/- were made against the petitioner in respect of which necessary enquiry should be conducted considering G.O.Rt.No.1097 F&P (FW.Pen.1) Department dated 22.6.2000, aggrieved by which the present writ petition has been filed.

¶10

Before this Court also similar pleas as taken before the Tribunal are taken on behalf of the petitioner. It is also contended before this Court that there is only a procedural lapse with regards to the question of financial irregularities which can be regulated by the Commissioner and Director of Agricultural Marketing.

¶11

In the said G.O. which is relevant here the Government issued instructions regarding sanction of encashment leave in respect of those Government Servants who retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation while under suspension or otherwise or when any disciplinary or criminal cases are pending against them. It clearly provides that the authority competent to grant leave in the above mentioned cases may withhold whole or any part of cash equivalent of earned leave if in the view of the competent authority, there is a possibility of some money becoming recoverable from him on conclusion of the proceedings against him. It also provides that on the conclusion of the proceedings, the retired employees would become eligible to the amount so withheld after adjusting the Government dues, if any.

¶12

What is significant here is there is material about the said financial irregularities covered by charge No.4 as noted above, in respect of which enquiry was initiated consequentially. Thereby

¶13

the matter is to be enquired into and disposed of. At this stage, in the absence of enquiry, no conclusion can be arrived at with regards to the financial irregularities and also to hold that there is only procedural lapse which can be regulated by the Commissioner and Director of Agricultural Marketing. There is also no basis now to order for sanction of encashment of even a part of earned leave. The Tribunal passed very reasoned order considering relevant facts and circumstances. We see no grounds to interfere with that order.

¶14

For the foregoing reasons, the writ petition is devoid of merits and liable to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶15

______________ (V.V.S.RAO, J)

¶16

________________________________ (G.KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY, J)

¶17

Date: 17.4.2012 DA

¶18

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY

¶19

WRIT PETITION No.10796 of 2012

¶20

17.4.2012

¶21

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD

¶22

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO

¶23

AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY

¶24

WRIT PETITION No.10796 of 2012

¶25

Date: 17.4.2012

¶26

Between: Gorthi Viswanatham And Government of A.P., rep. by its Principal Secretary to Government, Agricultural & Cooperation (Marketing) Department, A.P. Secretariat, Hyderabad and others.

¶27

.. Petitioner

¶28

.. Respondents

Gorthi Viswanatham v. The Government of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gorthi Viswanatham v. The Government 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

P.V.V. Nageshwar Rao, Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh

M/s. Vpl Projects Pvt. Limited Vs The Deputy Commissioner (Ct)

The Mothers Integral Educational Society, Vs The Gram Panchayat

M/s Sri Vishnu Enterprises Vs The Authorized Officer

Dr. Annepu Nirmala Vs The Anakapalle Municipality

Kumar Metallurgical Corporation Limited Vs Deputy Commercial Tax Officer