Dismissed

The State of a.P.,Transport,Randb.,Hyd.,and Anr. v. Sri B. Manikyam, Hyderabad, and 2 Otrs.

Telangana HC11 Sept 2023WP/26782/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging the A.P. Administrative Tribunal's order quashing disciplinary proceedings. The court held the Tribunal was justified in setting aside the proceedings as the charge memo was issued four years after the relevant financial years, violating pension rules.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed; miscellaneous applications closed; no costs.

The State of a.P.,Transport,Randb.,Hyd.,and… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

[³³¹⁸ ]

¶2

HIGH COURT FOR THE^{STATEOF TELANGANA} AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶3

MONDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY^{OF SEPTEMBER} TWO THOUSAND AND TWENW^THREE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE^{ABHINANDKUMARSHAVILI} AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE^{NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO}

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO :26782OF 2014

¶7

Between:

¶8

The State of A.P., rep- by^{its PrincipalSecretary to Government, Transport,} Roads and Buildings Department,^{Secretariat, Hyderabad.}

¶9

The Engineer-in-e hief^{'(R&B), (Administrationand NationalHighways)'} Errummanzil' Hyderabad

¶10

...pETrroNERS/

¶11

RESPONDENTS lN O.A.No.6549/1⁰

¶12

AND

¶13

'1 . Sri B. Manikyam, S/o. Bheemappa, RelQ. Executive Engineer (R&B)' R/o. House No. 1'9113/8, Dianand^{Nagar,Vidyanagar,Hyderabad.}

¶14

The Hon'ble A.P. Administrative^{Tribunal, Purani Haveli, Hyderabad, rep. by} its Registrar.

¶15

Dr. Suihrendu Bhattachrya,^{l.A.S., Member, Commissionerof Enquiries,} Enouirino Authoritv. New H Block^{(North Wing)} 13'd'Resfiondent^{is a formal party, no relief is sought againsthim)}

¶16

...RESPONDENTS

¶17

Petition under Article 226 of the^{Constitutionof lndia prayingthat in the} circumstances stated in the affidavit^{filed therewith,the High Courtmay be} pleased to issue an appropriate writ or direction more^{particularly one in the} nature of Writ of Certiorari calling^{for records relatingto the orders of the A.P.} Administrative Tribunal in 0.A.No.6549/'t0^{dt.21.09.20'12filed by Sri B. Manikyam'} Engineer (R&B) (Retired) and^quash the^{same as being perverse, in excess of} jurisdiction and contrary to law.

¶18

l.A. NO: 1 OF 201 4(WPMP . NO: 33478^{OF 2014)}

¶19

Petition under Section 151 CPC^praying that in the circumstances^{stated in} the affidavit filed in support of^{the petition, the High Courtmay be pleased to}

¶20

suspend the orders of the A.P. Administrative Tribunal,^passed in O.A.No.6549/10 dt.21 .O9.2012^pending disposal of the of the !'rit^petition

¶21

Counsel for the Petitioners: GP FOR SERVICES lll

¶22

Counsel for the Respondents: --

¶23

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶24

¶25

THE HON'BLE SRT ]USTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR^RAO

¶26

IT PETITION N .26

¶27

ORDER: (per AKS,J).

¶28

This Writ Petition is filed aggrieved by the order, dated 21.09.2012, passed in o.A.No.6549 of 2010 by the Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad (for brevity "the Tribunal").

¶29

Heard learned Government Pleader for Services-Ill appearing for the petitioners.

¶30

Learned Government Pleader appearing for the^petitioners had contended that respondent No.1 is a retired Executive Engineer and he has retired from service on 30.06.2000. After retirement, it was noticed by the State that respondent No.1 was involved in serious financial irregularities. Accordingly, the^petitioners initiated disciplinary proceedings against respondent No.1 by issuing a charge memo vrde G.O.Rt.No.800 , dated 23.O7.2003 and Enquiry Officer was also appointed to enquire into the charges. Aggrieved by the initiation of disciplinary proceedings, respondent No.1 approached the Tribunal by filing the subject O.A.No.6549 of 2010 contending that the charge memo issued against respondent No.1 is^{contraryto Rule} 9(2)(b) of Revised Pension Rules, 1980 and that there was delayⁱⁿ initiating disciplinary proceedings. The Tribunal vide order, dated

¶31

AKS,J & RRN,J 2 W P No 26782 of 2014

¶32

27.09.2OL2 was pleased to allow the O.A. by setting aside the charge memo and also entire disciplinary proceedings, without appreciating any of the contentions raised by the p 3titioners.

¶33

Learned Government pleader appearing for the petitioners Further contended that respondent No.1 has not deposited 216 Demand Drafts and also not returned Earnest Money Deposits during the financial years 1995_1999 ending with 31.03.1999. As enquiry was completed, the Tribunal ought to have allowed the State to pass final orders on the disciprinary proceedings, but the Tribunar had set aside the entire disciprinary proceedirgs against respondent No.1. Therefore, appropriate orders be passed in this writ petition by setting aside the impugned order, dated 2t.Og.2Ot2, passed in O.A.No.6549 of 2010 by the Administrative Tribunal, ltyderabad.

¶34

This Court, having considered the submissions made by the learned Government pleader appearing tor the petitioners. is of the considered view that the Tribunal is jLrsUfied in setting aside the disciplinary proceedings initiated against respondent No.1 on the ground that the charge memo is violativo of Rule 9(2)(b) of Revised Pension Rules, 19g0. As admittedly. the allegations pertain to financial years 1995_1999 ending upto 31.03.1999, and respondent No. t has retired from service on 30.06.2000 and charge memo was

¶35

AKS,J & RRN,J W P.No.26782 of 2014 3

¶36

i I I i I

¶37

issued to respondent No.1 vlde G.O.Rt.No.800, dated 23.O7.2003, the petitioners cannot travel four years backward from the date of issuance of charge memo and the State also cannot look into the irregularities said to have been committed four years prior to the date of initiation of such proceedings against respondent No.1. Therefore, the Tribunal has rightly allowed the subject O.A. Hence, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the impugned order passed by the Tribu na l.

¶38

Accordingly,. the Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs.

¶39

Miscellaneous Applications, if any, pending in this Writ petition shall stand closed.

¶40

^,',',!'+J'li'ltt\3"-'^"J ITTRUE^COPY" sEciffiN^oFFlcER

¶41

High^{Courtfor the State of Telangana'at} To sERvrcEs-rrr ,, I$"?S.# ",S,1-3* z. ifro^{cD coptes} PSK. sB \1--

I t

HIGH COURT

DATED:1110912023

ORDER

WP.No.26782 of 2014

---1,_ -"<br>.---,,,. - ,' ;..
1-
,1
l:.) 11 rrlNa
:. ::,..
''i.-' -:. .-
.-..

¶48

DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS.

¶49

6^a4uo qF6I,{u

The State of a.P.,Transport,Randb.,Hyd.,and Anr. v. Sri B. Manikyam, Hyderabad, and 2 Otrs.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The State of a.P.,Transport,Randb.,Hyd.,and Anr. v. Sri B. Manikyam, Hyderabad, and 2 Otrs.

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

Devathoti Dhanaraju Vs R.Muthyala Raju, I.A.S

K. Ravinder Vs Smt. Ranjeev R.Acharya, IAS

P. Dhanalakshmi Vs Smt. Ranjeev R.Acharya, IAS

Dr. Uzma Viquar Vs The Director

Superintendent of Post Offices, Nalgonda Dist and 2 Others Vs G. Linga Reddy, Nalgonda Dist and Ano

Prl. Secy., Secondary Education Dept. and 2 Ors. Vs Rayala Bhaskar Rao and Ano.