Allowed

V. Rajeshwari v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC30 Aug 2023WP/31150/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This High Court allowed a writ petition seeking to quash Government orders for recovery of funds deducted from the petitioner's pension. The Court held that since disciplinary proceedings abated upon the death of the employee before conclusion, the Government could not unilaterally quantify loss or issue recovery proceedings without a trial, directing the release of the deducted amount.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was allowed; the impugned Memo No. 1217/II/AlI2014 and consequential letter were set aside; respondents directed to release and pay Rs. 7,83,493/- to the petitioner within four weeks

V. Rajeshwari Vs The State of Telangana — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

132s7 l

¶2

I I

¶3

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE THIRTIETH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE JUWADI SRIDEVI

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO: 31150 OF 2018

¶8

Betwee n

¶9

V. Ra1'eshwari, W/o Late V. Dayasagar, Aged about 54 years, Occ. Housewife R/o 10-1-41 6, Old Nalanda Vidyalayam Santosh Nagar Street, Karimnagar - 505 001 Karimnagar District

¶10

..,PETITIONER

¶11

AND

¶12

The State of Telangana, rep. by its Principal Secretary, Education Deparlment, Telangana Secretariat, Hyderabad

¶13

The Comrnissioner of lntermediate Education, Telangana, Nampally, Hyderabad - 500 001

¶14

The Regional Joint Director, lntermediate Education, Warangal, Warangal District

¶15

The Accountant General (A and E), Telangana State, Hyderabad

¶16

.,.RESPONDENTS

¶17

Petition under Article 226 ot the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate Writ, Order or Direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Certiorarr, to call for the records relating to issuance of the impugned proceedings [/emo No. 1217ll,E|A112014 dated 3010512017 of the¹ st respondenl and consequential letter Rc. No. 3096/C4/PEN/2016 daled^1910612017 of the 3rd respondent, declare the same as illegal, arbitrary and in contravention of express statutory provisions and further opposed to law laid down by the Courts of Law in similar circumstances, set aside the same as such and consequently direct the respondents to release and^pay the deducted amount of Rs.7,83,4931 immed iately.

¶18

lA NO: 1 OF 2018

¶19

Petition under Sectron^'1 51 CPC praying that in the circ rntstances stated in the affidavit filed in ;upport of the pctition, the High^(lourt may re pleased to suspend the impugneC proceedings lvlemo No. 1217llElt\1120i 4 dated 3010512017 of the 1 st responden and consequential letter Rc. No. 3096/'lz /PE:N/201 6 dated 1910612017 of the 3r(l respondent with a direction to the respondents to release and pay the deductec amount of Rs.7,83,4931 forthwith^pendin,J disposal of writpetition.

¶20

Counsel for the Petit oner : SRl. K RAM REDDY

¶21

Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 to 3 : AGP FOR EDUCATION Counsel for the Resg ondent No.4 : SRI BALA KRISHNA, SC FOR r\G The Court made the lollowing: ORDER

¶22

HON'I}LE SMT, JUSTICII JT]'YADI SRIDE/t Wl{l't PIiTITION No.31150 of 2018

¶23

ORDER:

¶24

. 'l-his writ petition is filed seeking to quash the proceedir.rgs in Menro No. l2l7fiF./All20l4, dated 30.05.2017 issued by the 1'' respondent and the consequential letter in Rc.No.3096/C4lPljN/ 2016, dated 19.06.2017 of the 3'd respondent, and consequcntly direct the respondents to release the deducted amouni o1" I{s.7,81,493l- to the petitioner.

¶25

2 Ilerld. l)erused thc lecord.

¶26

J Case of the petitioner is that her husband/Late V. Dayasagar" had retired from service on 31.01.2014 as a Principal ol Govemment Junior College- As on the date of his retircnrcnt, disciplinary proceedings were pending against him, with regard to Ilnancial irregularities during his tenure in the earlier post ol' Lxecutivc Director ol District Backward Classes Service Co-operative Society (DBCSCS) Ltd. Subsequently, he died on 02.03.2014 while the said disciplinary proceedings rvere pcndit.tg against him. Thereafter, the Governmenl has issued the impugned

¶27

¶28

ls,.t lt .l'-\t'..t Il-t0 tt :ttl8

¶29

Memo dated 30.05.2017, fbr rL.oovery ol ar u rrlount of I{s.7,83,49 }/- fl'om the tcnninal bcnt'llts of t re decclserl-cmplovee i.e. tlre hus rand ol petitioncr hcrein. torvards thc loss caused to the Governnrcr t and relcase the pc'nsionary ber:cfits rrs pel Rules, as the death abates the criminal prosecution anc cisciplinary proceeding:; as per Ci.O.Rt.No.l097. dated 22.06.11000 and as per Rule 9(7)^,rf thc Telangana State Revised l)ension RrLles, 1980. Consequenl ro the Govcrnr.nent Memo dated -i0.05.2017, the Regional Jr int Director ol' Intt'rrnediate Edutration^lVar angal. has issued lett:r dated 19.06.2017 to the .\ccounlant General. Telangana Statc to recovcr thc above am()unt :,nrl r,:lease the pensionary lrenef-rts to the pctitioner'.

¶30

The aloresaid proceedings are challengcd on the g'ound that since the petitioner's husband lrad erpired during tre perdency of disciplinary proceedings, no further proceedings can be issued, as the loss cau;ed to the Government has not been quantifi,:d and no decision ha; been taken rvith regard to the rer:overr, as the disciplinary rroceedings rernaincd inconclusiv: duri tg thr: life tirne of the petitio ne:r's husband.

¶31

¶32

JS, J W.P.Nq.31 t 50 of 2018

¶33

.fhe respondcnts flled courlrer alfidavit accepting that the petitioner's husband had died rvhen tl.re disciplinary proceedings wcre at the slage ol enquiry. [t is contended that as per Rule 9(7)(a) o1- the^'l elangana Itevised Pension Rules, 1980, when a Govemment servant dies before conclusion of the proceedings, all turther proceedings stands abated, irowever, if any loss caused to the Covemment by the deccased/Goverrrment servant is establishcd, in such cases, the disciplinary proceedings will not automatically abatc and it is open to the Government to bring the iegal representatives on record and continue the disciplinary proceedings for the purpose of recovery of the misappropriated amount. It is admitted in the countel affidavit that due to the death o1' the petitioncr's husband, the disciplinary proceedings stood abated and hence could not be concluded. It is fuither admitted that the criminal proceedings initiated against the petitioner's husband by the B.C.Co-operative Finance Corporation Ltd.,^are also abated. I-lowever, it is stated that since the misappropriated amount was already determined against the husband of^the petitioner, the impugned orders are passed lbr recovery of an

¶34

.ts..1 tl .l'.\t,.-jl I-i(/ ttJ )0lll

¶35

an'rount ol- Rs.7,8-1.493/- llcnr tlre pcnsionarv berelits payable to thc wife of the deccase d-cmpio1.'ce i.e. the petitioner hert in.

¶36

In this case. it is to be notcd tlrat ri,hilc LIte lrusl'and o1'the petitioner/l ate V.Dayasagar \vas in :.ci'r,ic,l, disciplinary proceedine:: as u,cll as crir.ninal procee'dir-rgs rvere initia'ed against him, allegirrg fir-rancial ilregularities and he u'as r;uspe rded h'om service witt cffect lronr 2'7 .05.201 I - Whcn 1l c ord,:r ol- r;uspension and the arti;les ol chargc \vel'r-^(lucsti()ne d h,'lirre Lh: Tribunal by filing O.A..Jos.9ll0 and 9lll ol l0 Il, th,' l-ritru'ral. by order dated 29.1I 201 I, hcld that thc disciplinary proccecings ;hould not bc continu,:d whcn thc chargcs in criminal pl or:cerlings and departmenti I proccedings are or.lc and the siimc. l lier:after, the Govemmen had issucd G.O.ltt.No.li2 I, drted 10.10.2013 for reinstatemerrt of petitioner's husband in o sen ice pending finalization rf disciplinary proccedings and th: criminal rase, as he was under r uspension lor morc tl"ran tivo yer rs. l\c ]ordingly, he was poste( [ AS Principal at Go','ernmeirt Jr.nror College, Ellanthakun a, Karitnnagar District on 23.10.2013. znrl hr. rvas also perrritted tc retire l'rom sen,icc on the aftelroon ol'-1 1.0 1.2014.

¶37

¶38

JS, J ll'.P.No-J I I 5tt uf 2018

¶39

\ I

¶40

'['hereaftcr, he cxpired on 02.0-].2014 belore conclusion ol the

¶41

disciplinary proceedings as well as the crirninal case"

¶42

Admittedly. the petitioner's husband had retired from service on 31.0i.201-1 and he ciiecl on 02.03.20i4 and the disciplinary oroceedings initiated against hinr were abated due to his death. WithoLrt the petitioner's husband pafticipating in the disciplinary proceedings anci rvithout putting-lbr1h his case, the respondents, on their own, cannot quantify thc alleged loss caused to the Government, u,hich is non-est in the eye of law. [n view of the same. thc rcspondents ougl-rt not to have issued the irnpugned Memo No. l2l7llE/All20l4, dated 30.05.2017 and the consecluential ictter in l{c.No.3096/C4lPENi20l6, dated 19.06.2017 for recovery of the alleged loss caused to the Govemrnent. Therefore. the said orders are liable to be set aside.

¶43

For the aforesaid icasons, the writ petition is allowed, setting aside the inrpugned Merno No. l2l 7 /IfllAl12014, dated 30.05.2017 of the l'' respondcnt arrd the consequential letter Rc.No.3096lc4l PEN/2016, dated 19.06.2017 ol the 3'd respondent. The

J.t,.t

t . i,. \0 .; r tj0 of 20tt

¶48

respondentr are directed to rclcar;e and pay the deducteci amount of Rs.7,83,49jl- to the petitioncr rvithin a period of firur uceks fiont

¶49

the date olreceipt ora cop' oI rhis order. No orcrer as to costs.

¶50

Pending miscellaneous applications, il any. slrall stand