Dismissed

Khaja Mahamood Ali v. The Government of Andhra Pradesh

Telangana HC11 Mar 2014WP/6845/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment dismisses a writ petition seeking to quash an order withholding the petitioner's full pension and gratuity. The Court held that despite a suspended sentence, the conviction stands, giving the Government discretion to impose severe penalties based on the gravity of the corruption misconduct.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed; no order as to costs; miscellaneous petitions closed.

Khaja Mahamood Ali Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh — Corruption | Telangana HC (2014)

¶1

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU

¶2

AND

¶3

HONOURABLE Smt. JUSTICE ANIS

¶4

WRIT PETITION No.6845 of 2014

¶5

ORDER: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice K.C. Bhanu)

¶6

This Writ Petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is filed to issue a writ of certiorari calling for the records relating to order, dated 26.12.2012, in O.A. No.2312 of 2012 passed by the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad (for short, ‘the Tribunal’), and quash the same, to direct the respondents to pay the monthly pension to the petitioner and consequently declare the action of the 1^st respondent in withholding the full pension of the petitioner by issuing G.O.Rt.No.285, Finance (Admn.III) Department, dated 01.02.2011, as illegal and arbitrary.

¶7

2. The petitioner – applicant filed the aforementioned Original Application to set aside the proceedings issued by the 1^st respondent vide G.O.Rt.No.285 Finance (Admn-III) Department, dated 01.02.2011, imposing major penalty of withholding of pension and gratuity in full permanently to the petitioner and consequently declare the said proceedings, as illegal and arbitrary. The case of the petitioner was that while he was working as Sub-Treasury Officer at Mancherial, Adilabad, during the year 2003-04, the Anti Corruption Bureau (ACB) conducted a surprise check, caught hold of the petitioner and another as they demanded and accepted the bribe. The ACB authorities registered a case against the petitioner and another and filed charge sheet under Sections 7 and 13 (1) of the Prevention of Corruption Act,

¶8

1988 (for short ‘the Act’). The petitioner retired from service on 30.11.2008 on attaining the age of superannuation. Basing on the evidence available on record, the Principal Special Judge for SPE and ACB Cases Hyderabad, found the petitioner guilty of the offences punishable under Sections 7 and 13 of the Act, and sentenced him for the same to undergo imprisonment. Challenging the conviction and sentence, the petitioner preferred an appeal before this Court. This Court suspended the sentence of imprisonment. The appeal is still pending. While so, the Government vide G.O.Rt.No.285, dated 01.02.2011 issued proceedings withholding full pension and gratuity of the petitioner permanently. Challenging the same, the petitioner filed the O.A. The Tribunal, through its order, dated 26.12.2012, dismissed the O.A. Hence, this Writ Petition.

¶9

3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Services-II.

¶10

4. The petitioner was found guilty of the offences punishable under Sections 7 and 13 of the Act, and was also sentenced to undergo imprisonment by the Court of the Special Judge of SPE and ACB Cases. Though the appeal filed by the petitioner was admitted, the conviction was not suspended. What is suspended by this Court is sentence of imprisonment alone. So long as the conviction is staring at him, the Government is at liberty to impose punishment. It has got the discretion to impose 100% cut in the pension and other benefits of the petitioner. Considering the gravity of misconduct, the Government passed the G.O., withholding all the retirement benefits and also the pension. The Tribunal has rightly dismissed the O.A., as the G.O. passed by the Government needs no interference. We do not find any merit to interfere with the order passed by the Tribunal.

¶11

5. Hence, the Writ Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this Writ Petition shall stand closed.

¶12

______________

¶13

K. C. BHANU, J

¶14

_____________ ANIS, J

¶15

March 11, 2014. KTL

Khaja Mahamood Ali v. The Government of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Khaja Mahamood Ali 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

The Government of a.P., Vs K Venkateswarlu

C. Narsimlu Vs The Superintendent of Post Offices

S.Venkanna Vs The Superintendent of Post Offices

Tabeti Devasahayam, Vs The District Collector

The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Vs Sri K. Rajanna, Gr.I Warden

P. Ramanaiah Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh