This bench dismissed three writ petitions challenging a CAT order that rejected an employee's claim for pay during suspension post-acquittal but directed regularization of service for pension benefits.
Writ petitions dismissed; no order for pay during suspension; service regularized for pension purposes.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction)
FRIDAY ,THE THIRD DAY OF SEPTEMBER rWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY ONE
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A,RAJASHEKER REDDY AND
THE HONOURABLE DR, JUSTICE SHAMEEM AKTHER
WRIT PETITIO N NOS: 19986 & 20043 OF 2019 &16762OF 2021
WP NO: 19986 OF 2019
Between:
...PETITIONERS
AND
...RESPONDENTS
Petition under Article 226 of theconstitutionof lndia prayingthat in the circumstances stated in theaffidavit filed therewith, the HighCourt may be pleasedto call for records in respect of theorder of central administrativetribunal, Hyderabad bench, Hyderabad dated 15-3-2019in o.A.No.20/29312O14 and issue a writ of certiorari or any other writ or orderor direction declaring that the period during which the 1st respondent waskept outof service on account of convictioncanbe considered for thepurposes of computing pensionand service benefits granting the pension and service benefits and for regularizationof the service of the common order dt 15-3-2019 of centraladministrativetribunal,Hyderabadas illegaland contrary to law.
lA NO: 1 OF 2019
Petition under section 151 CPCprayingthat in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of thepetition,the Highcourt may be pleasedto staythe operation of the common orderdated 5-3-2019in in o.A.No.20129312014on the file oi the central administrativetribunal, Hyderabad Bench, Hyderabad pending disposal of the above writpetition.
Counsel for the Petitioners:M/S.T BALAJAYASREE
Counsel for the RespondentNo. 1: SRl. P GlRl KRISHNA
Counsel for the RespondentNo. 2:SRl. B JITHENDER, SC FOR CT
WP NO: 20043 OF 2019
Between:
...PETITIONERS
AND
T. Balaram, S/o. Posetty, Aged about 56 years, Occ. Section Supervisor, BSNL o/o. Subdivisional Engineei (Groups), Bddhan, Nizambad cisiriit, nyo. n.r.ro. z- 1 12,.Pothangal Village, Katgir Mandai, Nizambad district
...RESPONDENT
Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High court mly 6e pleased to call for records in respect of the order of central adminijtrative tribunal, Hyderabad bench, Hyderabad dated 15-3-2019 in o.A.No.21l1 B46l2o1s and issue a writ of certiorari or any other writ or order or directron declaring the period during which the respondent was kept out of service on account of conviction can be corisidered for the purposes of computing pension and service benefrts granting the pension and service benefjts and for regularisation of the service of the cornmon order dt 15-32019 of central adminikrative tribunal, Hyderabad as illegal and contrary to law
lA NO: 1 OF 2019
Petition under section 1s1 cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court may be pleased to stay the operation of the common order datedl5-3-2019 in 0.A.No.21l.182 612ois on the iile of the central administrative tribunal, Hyderabad Bench, Hyderabad pending disposal of the above writ petition.
Counsel for the Petitioners:MS/. T BALAJAYASREE
Counsel for lhe Respondent No. 1: SRl.p GlRl KRISHNA
WP NO: 16762 OF 2021
Between:
T. Balram, S/o Posetty,4gq.q2 y^e.a.q.Occ.,Retd. AOS (G), HR.No.t9BOOS167, O/o. Accounts Officer.(TRA), GVTD, BSNL Nizamao,ja. F/o n.No.1-rrz, Pothangal Village, Kotagiii Mandal, Nizamabad District.
...PETITIONER
AND
5 The T"l;;; Deputy Generat Manager, Dti;;i,"BE Nt:'rfiy"ra (A bad, and N p), izama BSNL, O/a. b"d Dirt,i"tlnera G I [Manager,
...RESPONDENTS
Petition under Articre 226 of the constitution of rndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fired therewith,-the High cou,i rlv6.'pGaseo to issue a writ, order or orders, direction or direciions more particurarry one in the nature of writ of fVlandamus_ declaring the order dared isro3l2ois'in- o-.e. No. 211.184612015 passed by the centrar AJministrative Tribunar ar Hya"rau"o i-n' .o r* not granting the pay and alowance to the petitioner during ff e perioo ro, wr,i"n t " Petitioner was kept out of service as iilegar and arbitrary and arso the action of the Respondents in not paying pension and- gratuity and other retirement benefits as illegal,^arbitra ry and against to the principrei or rultuial Justice and viorative of Aft 14 and 16 of constitution of lndia and allow the pay and allowance to tre-petitioner during the period for which the petitioner was kepi out of service ano consequentrv direct the Respondents to pay pension and gratuity and other retirement u."!iii.
lA NO:'l oF 2021
Petition under Section i 51 cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, ttre Hign court may be preased to direct the Resp-ondents to pay pension and gratuity aid othel" retirement benefits forthwith pending disposal of the above writ petition.
Counsel for the Petitioner:SRl. p GlRl KRISHNA
!9r11s1tltorthe Respondent No. 1: sRr.N. RAJESHWAR RAo, Assr. solrcrroR GENERAL
Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 2 to 5: M/S. p. SARADA, SC FOR BSNL
The Court made the following:
-ffi
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.RAJASHEKER REDDY AND THE HON,BLE DT. JUSTICE SHAMEEM A|KTHER
WRIT PETITION Nos.19986 & 20043 of 2019 & L6762 ot 2O2L
COMMON ORDER: (per Hon,bte Dr. lustice Shameem Akther)
since the facts of the case and the issue invorved in these three writ petitions are simirar and since these three writ petitions emerge out cf same common order, these three writ petitions are taken up together and being disposed of by this common order.
2' writ Petition Nos.19986 of zorg and 20043 of 2019 are fired by Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited (for short,.BSNL,), seeking a Writ of certiorari to cail for the records in respect of cornmon order, dated 15.03.2019, passed in O.A/20/0293/ZOt4 and O.A/2L/1846/20t5 respectively, by the central Administrative Triburnal, Hyderabad Bench, Hyderabad (for short, 'the Tribunar'), and decrare the direction of the Tribunal that "the period during which the 1"t respondent was kept out of service on account of his conviction in a criminar case can be considered for the purpose of computing pension and service benefits and granting the pension and service benefits and for regularization of service,, as illegal, arbitrary and r:ontrary to law. W.P.No.16762 of 2O2L is fited by the T.Balaram/applicant, challenging the order, dated 15.03.2019, passed in O.A/27/7846/2015, by the Tribunal, insofar as not granting the pay and allowances to him during the period for which he was kept out of service on account of his conviction in a criminar case and arso the action of BSNL in not paying pension and gratuity and other retirement benefits, as illegal, arbitrary.
aEr,l e Dt.sA,l w,P Nos,lr9aA/2021 Et bdrth
z
4, Learned Standing CounselforBSNL appearing forthe petitioners in W.P.Nos.19986 and20043 of2019 and 2nd respondent in W.P.N0.16762 of 2021would submitthat the Tribr'rnal, while correctly holding thatthe applicantis not entitled for pay and allowances for theperiod during which he waskept out of serviceon account of his convictionin a criminal case, erred in directingto the saidperiod for the PurPoseof reg u larize his serviceduring The said direction of theTribunal is pensio n and service benefits. against the lawlaid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Cou rtin 1 C.R.RadhakrishnanVs' State of Kera la . The acquittal of the applicant in thesaid criminal case is not an honourableacquittal.He was acquitted ontechnical grounds, i'e., extendingthe benefitof doubt. Further,.thereis no legal bar to initiate disciplinaryinquiry against the applicantin respect of the same charge,whichwas leveled in a criminalcase, when the applicant was not acquittedon merits. The service of theapplicantcannot be regularized for the purpose of pension and service benefitsduring the period whichhe was kept out of service onaccountof his conviction in a criminal case.TheTribunalfailedtoappreciatethatafterimpositionof penaltyofdismissalfromserviceintheyear2006,theapplicantdid | (2017) li Suprcmc Court Cascs .i65
J
ARRJ A D..SA,J W.P.Nos.l 99A6/2021 & batch
not challenge the same before any judiciar forum. standard of proof in a criminal case is entirely different from standarcr of proof in an inquiry in disciplinary proceedings. No discriminatio^ was shown by BSNL to the appllcant and ultimately prayed to allow W.p.Nos.19986 & 20043 of 2019 and dismiss W.p.No.1676Z of ZO2t.
aR&l e Dls&l w,P,Nos,199O6/2 021 & hotch
J
"Whether the common order, dated 15.03-2olst passed in O.A/20/L293/2OL4 & O.A/2L/1A46/ 2015 with MA 219/2OL9, by theCentral Administrative Tribunal,HyderabadBench, Hyderabad, is legallY sustainable?"
POINT:-
ARR,I & Dr.SA"t ,Y, P, Nos, 1 99a6/2 02 1 & batch
Andhra Pradesh. The erstwhile High Court of Arrdhra Pradesh reversed the judgment passed by the CBI Court, set aside the conviction and sentence and acquitted the appellant of the charges Ievelled against him. After acquittal, the applicant submitted a representation to the Department to reinstate him into service, but the same was not considered. Therefore, he filed O.A.No.201293/20t4 before the Tribunal seeking a direction to the respondents therein to reinstate him into service with back wages and consequential benefits. After receiving notice in the said O.A., the Department reinstated the appricant into service on 08.05.2014. Thereafter, the Department issued Charge-Memo, dated 30.09.2015, proposing departmental inquiry against him, leveling the very same charge on which the appricant was acquitted in the criminar case. Therefore, the applicant filed O,A.No.2I/t846/2OLS to quash the said charge-Memo on the ground that when he was acquitted of the very same charge by the High Court, he cannot be subjected to disciplinary inquiry in the year 2015 in respect of the incident which allegedly occurred in the year 2003, by examining the same witnesses. The Tribunar, having considered the su bmissions made and the material placed on record, passed the impugned common order, dated 15.03.2019, holding as follows:
"In tle.result, Charge memo issued against applicant is quashed. Applicant is not enti ed for pay and allowances for the period _during which he was oul of service. For the purpose of pension and service benefits, resportdents are directed to regularize the service of the applicant."
Aggrieved by the observation made by the Tribunar that the appricant is not entitled for pay and allowance for the period during which he was kept out of service on account of his conviction in a criminar case, the applicant filed W.p.No.16762 of 2021, whereas, aggrieved
6
ARR| & D.sa , w.p No._ 1 sess/zo2 i'sl tto tL h
by the observation made by the Tribunal that for the purpose of pension and service benefits, the respondents are directed to reguiarize the service of the applicant, the BSNL filed W.p.Nos.19986 and 20043 of 2019.
8' There cannot be any dispute that there is no regar bar to initiate disciplinary inquiry against the applicant in respect of the same charge which was leveled in a criminal case, when the applicant was not acquitted on merits' The materiar praced on record revears that the Department imposed penarty of dismissar from service against the applicant by order, dated 2L.07.2006, by exercising power under Rule 19 of CCS Rules, basing on his conviction by CBI Court. The applicant challenged his conviction by the CBI Court before the High Court and the High Court set aside his conviction on technical grounds. Here, it is apt to state that a Government employee cannot be subjected to departnrentar inquiry for an indefinite period. In the instant case, the alleged misconduct of the applicant, i,e., demand and acceptance of illegal gratification of Rs.1,000/- was of the year 2003. The department did not initiate disciplinary inquiry against the applicant till the year 2015. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has time and again held that in service matters, departmental inquiry has to be initiated within a reasonable time and has to be completed within a reasonable time. When there is no legal bar or stay by a competent Court to initiate disciplinary inquiry immediately after detecting the alleged misconduct of the applicant in the year 2003, the Department ought to have initiated the same at the earliest possible time. Department waited for the verdict of the CBI Court and then issued dismissal order, that too by exercisingpower under Rule 19 of CCS Rules, whichpermits the Department to dismiss the
AR&l& Dr'sA l wa No.l9986/2021& b t!-h
1
employeebased on his convictionin criminal charge'by dispensing with the enquiry.Thus, the intention of the Departmentappears to be that itwanted to base its decision on the verdict of the CBI Court' Having chosento act underRule 19 of CCS rules' whichprescribesa the Departmentagain cannot issue a charge- special Procedu re, memo at alater stage to theapplicant proposirlg toinitiate disciplinary enquiryagainsthim, particularlyafter the lapse of 12 years, i.e., when the employee wason verge of retirement'Under these circumstances, the Tribunalrightly held that the Charge-Memo, dated 30.09.2015, issued by the Department suffersfrom delayand laches.
9, The learned Standing Counsel for the petitioners, placing reliance on C.R.Radhakrishnan's case supra, woulrJ submit that when the acquittal of the applicant is not an honourable acquittal, the Tribunal erred in directing to regularize the service of the applicant for the purpose of pension and service benefits during the period which he was kept out of service. In C. R. Radhakrishnan,s case supra, the appellant was aggrieved by denial of full service benefits for the period he was kept out of service on account of his conviction in a criminal case. The conviction was subsequentry set aside by the High Court and he was acquitted. Since the appellant therein was acquitted, he contended that he is entitred to fuil service benefits under Rule 56 of Kerara service Rures, part I. The Horr,bre supreme Court, while discussing the relevant provisions, i.e., Rule 56(1) & (2) of Kerala service Rures, part I, herd that since the acquittar of the appellant therein was not a honourable acquittal but was only on tienefit of doubt and ultimately negated the craim of Lhe appeilant therein. Rule 56(1)&(2) of Kerara service Rures, part i, rs not akin to
AR&l & Df;SAJ w. P.Nos.l 99A6/2021 & bo.ch
8
Rule 19 of CCS Rules. Both the Rules distinctly operate. In the instant case, there are no departmental findings in respect of the alleged misconduct on the part of the applicant. The facts of the cited decision are distinct to the facts of the case on hand. Further, similarquestion arose for consideration in a decision relied by BSNL before the Tribunal {Commissioner of Police and anotherVs. Meher Singh (2013) 7 SCC 6a5), but the Tribunal didnot sustain the submissions made on behalf of BSNL.
10, In the instant case, the Tribunal, after examining theentire material on record, appears to have appliedthe principle of 'no-work no-pay' and, accordingly, did notgrant pay and allowancesfor the period during which the applicant was kept out of service, but however, directed to regularize the serviceof applicant for the purpose of pension and service benefits.
'_
ARR,I & Dt..s.4l W.P.Nos.l 9986/2021 & botch
9
any perversity/ patent illegality, irrationality in the common order of Tribunal. The relief sought by the Department in \A/.p.Nos.19986 & 20043 of 2019 cannot be granted, so also the reltef sought by the applicant in w.p.No.16762 of zozt. All these writ petitions are devoid of merit and are liable to be dismissed.
\
SD/.T.KRISHNA KUMAR ASSISTANT REGISTRAR
//TRUE COPY//
SE toN OFFICER
To,
Pful "l*--
HIGH COURT
DATED:03/09/2021
COMMON ORDER
WP.Nos.19986 & 20043 ot 2019 & 16762 of 2021
STATE:
; 1 1-r9
t<br>aa
15 sEP2021
Joo
I
.C
t
OS sirt.I
Dismissing the Wp,s Without costs.
.*
I ra
-"r.-'-.r
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the Common Order dated 15.03.2019 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal is legally sustainable despite the employee's acquittal on a technical ground?
Whether the employee is entitled to pay and allowances for the period during which he was kept out of service on account of conviction?
Whether the service period during which the applicant was kept out of service on account of conviction can be regularized for the purpose of pension and service benefits?
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
C.R. Radhakrishnan Vs State of KeralaReferred¶76
C.R. Radhakrishnan Vs State of Kerala
Commissioner of Police and another Vs. Meher SinghReferred¶76
(2013) 7 SCC 645 Commissioner of Police and another Vs. Meher Singh · Who else cites this
Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited
T. Balaram
The Union of India
The Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench
A, Rajasheker Reddy
Shameem Akther
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
