Dismissed

Union of India v. Md.Ibrahim

Telangana HC14 Jul 2023WP/26539/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging an order of the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) which set aside a second charge-memo. The CAT had held that since the respondent had retired before a prior proceeding, issuing a fresh charge-memo without invoking Rule 9 of C.C.S. Pension Rules was invalid. The High Court upheld the Tribunal's view as justified.

What did the court decide?

No costs; miscellaneous applications pending in this Writ Petition are closed.

Union of India Vs Md.Ibrahim — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

[³³¹⁸ ]

¶2

IN THE HIGH^{COURT FOR THE STATEOF TELANGANA} AT HYDERABAD

¶3

(SPecial Original Jurisdiction)

¶4

FRIDAY, THE FOURTEENTH^{DAY OF JULY} TWO THOUSAND^{AND TWENTY THREE}

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE^{SRIJUSTICEABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI} AND THE HONOURABLE^{SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO}

¶7

WRIT PETITION N O: 26539^{OF 2016}

¶8

Between:

¶9

Union of lndia,^{Rep by The Director General Posts,Departmentof Posts,} DakBhavan, New Delhi

¶10

The Chief Postmaster^{General,A.P.Circle, Hyderabad,}

¶11

The Postmaster^{General,HyderabadRegion, Hyderabad,}

¶12

The Director of^{Postal services, 0/o The PostmasterGeneral,A.P.circle,} Hyderabad

¶13

The Superintendent^{of Post Offices, Nalgonda Division, Nalgonda- 508001'}

¶14

...PETITIONERS

¶15

AND

¶16

Md.lbrahim, S/o^{Mohd.Khasim, Retd.Asst.Postmaster/Accounts,Head Post} Office, Nalgonda, Nalgonda^{Division, Nalgonda District.}

¶17

The Hon'ble Central^{Administrative Tribunal, HyderabadBench, HACA} Bhavan, Hyderabad^{Rep by its Registrar.}

¶18

...RESPONDENTq

¶19

Petition under Article^{226 ot the constitutionof lndia prayingthat in the} circumstances stated^{in the affidavitfiledtherewith,the High court may be} pteasea to issue an order or^{direction more particularly in the nature of} _writ _of bertiorari, calling^{for the records pertaining to order dated 18.07.2014in OA No.} 688 of 2012 of the^{Honble centralAdministrativeTribunal, Hyderabad Bench,} iyO"raUaA and^{quashthe same as illegal, arbitrary, contrary to law and} u nconstitutional.

¶20

¶21

l.A. NO: 1 OF 2016(WPMP. NO 32846 0F 2016)

¶22

Petition under Section 151 cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court may be pleased io suspend the operation of order dated 1B-o7-2014 in o.A.No. 6gg of 2612 on the file of Hon'ble centrar Admrnrstrative Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench at Hyderabad pending disposal of the main u/rit petition.

¶23

Counsel for the Petitioners: SRI GADt pRAVEEN KUMAR,

¶24

DY. SOLICITOR GENERAL OF INDIA

¶25

Counsel forthe Respondent No.1: SRI A. RAGHU KUMAR

¶26

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶27

¶28

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI

¶29

AND

¶30

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE IAMAVARAPU RAJF^SHWAR RAO

¶31

Writ Petition No.26539 of 2016

¶32

ORDER : (Per Horr'ble Jusrtc" Ablnna cl Kumar Struuili)

¶33

This writ petition is filed by the petitioners under Article 226 of the Constitution praying this Court to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly in the nature of Certiorai by calling for the records pertaining to order dated 18.O7.20 l4 passed in O.A.No.688 of 2Ol2 by the Central Administrative Tribunal, at Hyderabad (for short, 'the Tribunal'), and quash the same as illegal, arbitrary, contrary to law ald unconstitutional.

¶34

Heard Mr. Gadi Praveen Kumar, learned Deputy Solicitor General of India, appearing for the petitioners and Mr. A. Raghu Kumar, Iearned counsel for the 1"t responden t.

¶35

Learned Deputy Solicitor General of India, appearing for the petitioners, contended that the 1"r respondent was working as 'Assistant Post-Master' with the petitioners; while the l"t respondent was in service, the 1"r respondent

¶36

¶37

.ii:, & R R N,.l ,vl) r6 519 2O1r)

¶38

engaged ccrtain postnrirn staff for NaLionarl Rural Employmen Ge ncratiotr Scheme labour u orks t-ilhout obtarning prior approv:rl lrom the Divisional Ofl'icc of thc pctitior-rers r,,'hich resultccl in irregular pa-'m crl l o[ salary to outsidcrs for- a pcriod of'I-ive (O5) months, the rcb-t', causiug finalcial loss to the Exchequer to a tune of Rs.53,846/-; thereafter, the disciplinzrrv authority initiated clisciplinary proceedings against the 1', rcspondent; aftcr cot-rducting a dctailed cnquiry, the clisciplinary authorit,r' has c:otrstrued the same as misconduct and issued chargc-menro dated 1 1.08.2008 .o the I^st resil)ondent; during pendr:ncv of the said charge-rnemo, the 1,, respondent retired frorn service on 31.O8.2008; during subsistence of the said chargememo, the discipiinary proceedings \,ere continued by the petitioners, and after cor-rducting a detailed enquirv ald for the proven misconduct. the petitioners irnposed a punishment of recovery ol an amount of Rs.8O,6B9/on the 1"t respondent vide Mcmo No.AC /Md.l /2OOB-09, dated 28.08.2O08; aggrieved thereby, the 1.t respondent approached the Tribunal by filing O.A.No.1067 of 2OO9; uide order dated 04.17.2011, the Tribunal u,as pleased to

¶39

AKS,] & RRN, ] ,vp_26519_2o16

¶40

¶41

¶42

allow the O.A. b-v setting aside the punishment imposed on the 1"t respondent on the ground that principles of natural justice were not follow,ed b,y the petitioners and no opportunity was also given to the 1.r respondent; however, the Tribunal gave liberty to the petitioners to conduct a regular enquiry after giving opportunity to the 1"r respondent.

¶43

Learned De puty Solicitor General of India, appearing for the petitioners, further contended that pursuant to the order passed by the Tribunal in the said O.A., the petitioners have issued a second Charge-Memo vide Memo No.AClMD.I/20085-O9, dated 24.O2.2O12, for conducting fresh enquiry against the l"r respondent; aggrieved by the second Memo, the lst respondent had again approached the Tribunal by filing O.A.No.688 of 2Ot2 challenging the second Memo referred above; uid.e order dated, lg.OZ .2014, the Tribunal was pleased to set aside the second Memo dated 24.O2.2012 also on the ground that the l"t respondent had already retired from service and disciplinary proceedings can only be initiated in terms of Rule 9 of C.C.S Pension Rules, but not under Rule 16(l)(b)

,i.1

,\K),I L\ Ril \ 2 r 6,_r 19,

¶48

{

¶49

ot the C.C^{S (C.Cl.A.) Ilules,1965 u'ithoulappr-ccraLing atrt} ol thc collt,ltttions^{raist:dll.l' the petitioners}

¶50

Lcarttc:d couttsel^{lor the petitionersfulthcr contendcd} that sit-tcc the^{Triburralgave liberty to tl-rt: pelrtiolrersto} cor-rcluct fr,:sh etlquill',^{pl.ll'suant to its etrrliel' order dated} 04.ll.2OIl^{passcd ir.r O A.No.1067 of 200(1,thc petitioncrs} have issuecl^{second charge-memodated 24 02'2012 on the} 1'1 respondcnt;^{theri:fore,the Tribunal coulcl not havc} again set ;rside^{the impugnedsecond cl-rargcmemouide} order dateri^{18.O7.2O14passedin O'A'No 688 oi 2012'as} the verlr same Tribun:rl^{had given liberty to the pctitioners} to conduct a fresh^{enquiry; and therefol'e, praycdthis} Court to pass approPriate^{orders in the u'rit petitionb.v} setting aside tl-re order^{passed bytl-re Tribunal in} O.A.No.6BU of 2012,^{dated 18.O7.2014, ancl permitthe} petitioners to proceed^{against the1"t respondentby} conducting regular enquiry^{pursuant to thesecond} Charge-Memo dated 24.O2.2012,^{and allow thewrit} petition.

¶51

6, On the other hand, learned^{coutlsel for the1"t} respondent contended that the lst respondent^{had retired}

¶52

¶53

AKS,J & R RN,J !vP_)65J9 2o16

¶54

¶55

from service on 31.O8.20O8;^{once an employeeretires from} servlce, no disciplinary^{proceedings can be continued} again st an employee, except under Rule 9 of^C.C.S Pension Rules; the Tribunal^{had categoricalll' heid that} since Rule 9 of C.C.S.^{PensionRules u'as not invoked by} the petitioners, the question of issuing a^freshcharge- memo on identical set of charges u'ould not^arise; therefore, the Tribunal was^justified tn allovving the O.A.No.6B8 of 2012, dated 18.07.2014, in^favour of the^1"t respondent; and therefore, there are no merits^irr the^Writ Petition and the same is liable to be dismissed

¶56

This Court, having considered the rival submissions made by the parties, is of the considered view that admittedly, the l"t respondent had retired lrom servrce^on 31.08.2008, and the impugned second charge-memo was issued to the 1"t respondent on 24.O2.2012 without invoking Rule 9 of C.C.S. Pension Rules. Therefore, the Tribunal was^justified in allowing the O.A.No.688 of 2012, dated 18.O7 .2O14 in favour of the l't^respondent Therefore, this Court is not inclined to interfere with^the order passed by the Tribunal in O.A.No.68B^{of 2012,dated}

¶57

1a.O7 .2OI4 .Aq(.r)r(ljl!r,l\ , Ll-re Writ pctiti()rr fails an<l thc

¶58

\ 4E+ \ ' -:

¶59

sarne is rlisrnrssecl. No r.osts

¶60

As a s<:quel, misr.ellerneous applicatio:rs pending if an-r, in th s \Vrit Pr:Lrtion. sl-rall stand closed.

¶61

SD/-A.V.S.PRASAD ASSISTAIqREGISTRAR //rRUE COPY// < b SECTION OFFICER

¶62

To, 1. One CC to SRI GADI PRAVEEN KUMAR, DEPUTY SOLICITOR GENERAL oF rNDrA [OPrC] 2. One CC to SRI A. RAGHU KtJMAR, Advocate [OPUC] 3. Two CD Copies BNGJP$r

HIGH COURT

DATED:1410712023

ORDER

WP.No.26539 of 2016

i -\ o
..)
,.i
1g [us NB
-, //
7

¶68

DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS

¶69

J ,> t

Union of India v. Md.Ibrahim

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Union of India v. Md.Ibrahim

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

V. Subba Rao, S/o.v. Seshagiri Rao, Vs The Union of India

Union of India Vs T. Santhana Babu

Union of India Vs Poola Rajanna

Bhukya Sai Praveen Vs The State of Telangana

Corporation Medical College and Hospital Vs M/S. Sai Pharmacy (Wholesale and Retail)

Mohd. lmran Ali Vs The Ts Residential Educational Society