Dismissed

Mahender v. The Joint Director ,Pension Payment office

Telangana HC13 Apr 2012WP/9432/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petitions challenging reversion orders and censure punishment for employees caught in a pension fraud scam were dismissed. The Court held that ad hoc promotions were conditional on the disciplinary outcome, and censure barred promotion, validating the reversion without natural justice violation.

What did the court decide?

The writ petitions and miscellaneous applications were dismissed without orders as to costs.

Mahender Vs The Joint Director ,Pension… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2012)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO AND

¶2

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY

¶3

WRIT PETITION Nos.9432 and 9471 of 2012

¶4

April 13, 2012

¶5

Between: Mahender, S/o.Singari (Late)

¶6

... Petitioner

¶7

And

¶8

The Joint Director, Pension Payment Office, Hyderabad And others

¶9

... Respondents

¶10

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO AND

¶11

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY

¶12

WRIT PETITION Nos.9432 and 9471 of 2012

¶13

COMMON ORDER: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice V.V.S.Rao)

¶14

These two writ petitions are filed by two employees of Pension Payment Office (PPO), aggrieved by the common order dated 22.2.2012 of the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal (APAT). The brief fact of the matter is as follows. In the second half of 2007 there was alleged fraudulent withdrawal of compassionate pension in the office of the first respondent. Fortynine (49) employees of different ranks were identified for the scam. This involved change of descriptive rolls by affixing the photographs of fake pensioners, indiligent maintenance of pension records and contravention of procedures as prescribed in Subsidiary Rules 64 to 87 under Treasury Rule 16 of Andhra Pradesh Treasury Code Vol.1 and related executive instructions. The Government seized the matter and all the identified employees were subject to disciplinary enquiry.

¶15

In view of the pendency of the enquiry, the petitioners who were working as Junior Accountants in the office of the Assistant Pension Payment Officer were not promoted to the post of Senior Accountant. The petitioners filed Original Applications (OAs) challenging the non-consideration for promotion to the post of Senior Accountant. The OAs were allowed. The Government challenged the order unsuccessfully before this Court. In view of the same, the first respondent promoted the petitioners on ad hoc basis as Senior Accountants.

¶16

In the disciplinary enquiry, the charge framed was that the petitioners exhibited lack of integrity, deviation from duty and

¶17

conduct unbecoming of Government servant and thereby contravened Rule 3(1) and (2) of the Andhra Pradesh Civil Service (Conduct) Rules, 1964 (CCS Rules) as directed by the Government, the Commissioner of Enquiries conducted enquiry and submitted report on 05.11.2009, the charge framed against which petitioners was found to have been proved. The explanation was called for and the disciplinary authority (first respondent) by proceedings dated 30.7.2010 awarded punishment of “censure” under Rule 9(i) of the Andhra Pradesh Civil Services (Classification, Conduct & Appeal) Rules, 1991 (CCCA Rules). In view of the same, first respondent issued proceedings dated 27.10.2010 reverting the petitioners to the cadre of Junior Accountant. They were posted in the office of the first respondent. These orders were assailed by the petitioners by filing O.A.Nos.7525 and 7571 of 2010 respectively.

¶18

The petitioners mainly contended that their reversion is contrary to the orders of the Courts and they violate principles of natural justice. Both these grounds did not weigh with the APAT and the OAs were dismissed. The petitioners filed review applications being M.A.Nos.689 and 691 of 2012. By order dated 27.3.2012 they were dismissed holding that the earlier orders do not suffer any material error manifest on the face of the record.

¶19

The Counsel for the petitioners would submit that one K.S.Vidya Sagar, who was the Senior Assistant when the enquiry was initiated, was also promoted as Junior Accounts Officer (JAO). He was reverted after the first respondent imposed the punishment. He then filed O.A. No.7528 of 2010 before the APAT and by order dated 19.1.2011 reversion was set aside directing to continue him as JAO till the date of superannuation. Secondly it is contended that the post of Senior Accountant cannot be treated as a selection post in view of Rule 5(b) of the Andhra Pradesh State

¶20

and Subordinate Service Rules, 1996 (General Rules) and therefore, even if the punishment of censure is imposed, the petitioners could not have been reverted to the lower cadre. Lastly he would submit that after completion of hearing in the OAs, order in O.A.No.7528 of 2010, dated 19.4.2010 was relied by the petitioners and the OAs were reserved to consider the same but ignoring it OAs were dismissed without following the same.

¶21

The Government Pleader for Services-II relies on the executive instructions in G.O.Ms.No.342, GAD, dated 04.8.1997 which deals with the effect of minor penalties. As per this G.O., an employee who suffers punishment of “censure” shall be debarred for promotion/appointment by transfer for one year to both selection and non-selection posts. He nextly submits that admittedly the petitioners were not promoted to the post of Senior Accountant and their juniors were considered for promotion. They were promoted on ad hoc basis in obedience to the orders of the APAT making it very clear that their promotion would be subject to outcome of disciplinary enquiry and, therefore, there is no violation of principles of natural justice.

¶22

The plea of the petitioners is that there is violation of principles of natural justice cannot be accepted. A perusal of the promotion orders issued on 29.9.2011 to the petitioners would show that in obedience to the orders of APAT in O.A. No.3542 of 2006, the petitioners were promoted on ad hoc basis making it clear that the same is subject to outcome of disciplinary pending against them. As rightly submitted by the Government Pleader any punishment of “censure” will debar a Government employee for promotion for one year whether the post is selection post or non-selection post. If the petitioners are not reverted even after imposing punishment of censure by the disciplinary authority, it would certainly violate the Government instructions as well as the

¶23

very promotion order made subject to the result of the disciplinary enquiry. The petitioner all through knew very well that their ad hoc promotion is subject to the outcome of the disciplinary enquiry and, therefore, they cannot complain violation of principles of natures. In the factual background of the case, no prejudice is caused to the petitioners as their promotion itself is on ad hoc basis subject to the punishment that may be awarded in the disciplinary enquiry.

¶24

The submission based on Rule 5(b) of the General Rules for the same reasons as above must fail. Insofar as APAT not relying on the decision in O.A.No.7528 of 2010 (K.S.Vidya Sagar v Director, Treasuries and Accounts) is concerned, we do not find any serious lapse in that regard. In the impugned order, the Tribunal relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in State of Punjab v Chaman Lal Goya l^[1] wherein it was held that the promotion made pending disciplinary enquiry shall be always subject to review after the conclusion of the enquiry and in the light of the findings in the enquiry. In the order of APAT in the earlier OA being O.A.No.7328 of 2010, it appears that it proceeds on its own facts and the same does not refer to any decision of the Supreme Court. But in these cases as we have pointed out earlier ad hoc promotion was subject to final outcome of the disciplinary enquiry. If the same ended in awarding “censure”, it debars an employee for promotion. If the petitioners are not reverted, it amounts to putting premium on misconduct. We do not find any error much less any grave error apparent on the face of the record.

¶25

The writ petitions, as also the miscellaneous petitions, for the above reasons, are dismissed without any order as to costs.

¶26

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

¶27

(G.KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY, J)

¶28

April 13, 2012 YS

¶29

[1] (1995) 2 SCC 570

Mahender v. The Joint Director ,Pension Payment office

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mahender v. The Joint Director ,Pension Payment office

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

A. Ramakrishna Vs Andhra Bank

G. Vijaya Lakshmi Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

The State of Andhra Pradesh, Vs P. Venkata Rao

M/s. Rohini Footwears, Vs The Vijaya Bank

Union of India, rep by Superintendent of Post Offices, Vs Sangam Lachaiah S/o Late Lingaiah

Vodafone South Limited, Vs Greater Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporation