Allowed

Y.Pushpa Raju, v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC23 Oct 2024WP/31886/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court quashed a charge memo issued by the Tribunal for Disciplinary Proceedings more than four years after the alleged incident. The petitioner, a retired excise inspector, claimed his pension and gratuity were wrongly withheld due to this delay, violating the Andhra Pradesh Revised Pension Rules, 1980.

What did the court decide?

Quashing of the impugned charge memo dated 03.08.2018; Direction to pay 25% pension, gratuity, and other retirement benefits with interest.

Y.Pushpa Raju, Vs The State of Telangana — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2024)

¶1

[³³⁸⁴ ]

¶2

HIGH COURT FOR THE^{STATE OF TELANGANA} AT HYDERABAD

¶3

(SPecial Original Jurisdiction)

¶4

WEDNESDAY,^{THE TWENTYTHIRD DAY OF OCTOBER} TWO THOUSAND^{ANDTWENTY FOUR}

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE^{SRI JUSTICE ANIL KUMARJUKANTI}

¶7

WRIT PETITIO^{N NO: 31 886 0F 2017}

¶8

Betvveen:

¶9

Y.Pushpa Raju,^{S/o Late Y. Pochaiah, aged-62} .years'^{RetiredProhandExcise} tnsoector. Hvderabad^{Division, H.f.f".6-iZOif ,-Buddfra Nagar Street, No.6,Uppal} iirlbdp,it,^{ieezadiguda, Ranga Reddv District'}

¶10

...,.PETITIONER

¶11

AND

¶12

The State^{of Telangana,rep by its Principal Secretaryto Government'} ' n.li"-"'i" tEicGe. iioepartment, Secretariat' Hyderabad'

¶13

The Commissioner^{of Prohibition& Excise'State of Telangana'Hyderabad'}

¶14

The Tribunal^{for Disciplinary Proceedings.,,rep by its secretary' Exhibition}

¶15

" G;;ril;; N;mpattv, stat" 6f relangana' Hvderabad'

¶16

.....RESPONDENTS

¶17

PetitionUnderArticle226oftheConstitutionoflndiaprayingthatinthe circumstancesStatedintheaffidavitfiledtherewith,theHighCourtmaybe pleased to issue an^{appropriate Writ,Orderor Drrectionmore particularlyone in} the nature^{of Writ of Mandamus declarethe impugned Charge Memo dated- 21-8-} 2017 issued^{in Tribunal EnquiryCase No 61 of 2013 and servedon 1-9-2017' by} the3rdrespondentwithoutjurisdictionandinviolationofRuleg(2XbXii)ofA.P. Revised Pension^{Rules,which causing prejudice in getting implementationof the} orderspassedinW.P.No'164B9of2017dated-28-4.2olTforreleasingfull pension and Gratuity,^{thereforeset aside the sameand consequently direct} respondents^{to release my full Pension' Gratuity and otherretirementbenefits} immediatelY.

¶18

i.f

¶19

l.A.NO^{:1 0F2017(WPMPNO: 39719 OF20 171}

¶20

aying^{that in the circumstances statedin} Petition^{Under Section1 51 CPC Pr} on, the^{High Court maY be Pleased to} the affidavit^{filed in supportof the petiti} 21-8-2017^{issued by the 3rd respondent} suspend^{the impugnedcrarge [/emoDt'} Casr.' No.61^{of 2013'pendingdisPosalof the abovewrit} in Tibunal^EnquirY petition.

¶21

t.A.NO^{:1oF 2018}

¶22

Between:

¶23

The State^{of Telangana,rep by its Principal Secretaryto Government'} ' n."r"ln'I""tE*"ii" r :o"p'"t'i'e rit, secreta riat'^{Hyd erabad}

¶24

The^{Commissioner of Prohibition & Excise' Stateof Telangana'Hyderabad'}

¶25

3 The Tribunal^{for Disciplinary Proceedings-'.rep by its Secretary'Exhibition} " G;;r;i".,'N;rnprrr I' stat" tjf relangana'^Hyderabad'

¶26

.....PETITIONERS/RESPONDENTS

¶27

AND

¶28

Y.Pushpa^{Raiu, S/o Lglq YPochaiah' aged-62 .vears' Retired ProhandExcise} tnsoector,^{Hvderabad u'v'sitn,' li:]U 5-1'z0i1:.eudohi NagarStreet' No 6' Uppal} [',iSb?idt,'^{d""i=aisudrr,RansaReddv District'}

¶29

.....RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS

¶30

Petition^{Under Serction151 CPC praying thatin the circumstances statedin} the affidavit^{fired in suoport of the petition, the High court may be preased to} vacate the^{interimorderdated: 21-09-2017 passedin wP'No'31886of 2017 '}

¶31

Counsel^{for the Petitioner : SRI K'RAMALINGESWARARAO}

¶32

Counsel^{for the Respondents: GP FOR REVENUE (EXCISE)}

¶33

The Court^{made the following ORDER}

¶34

THE HON'BLE^{SHRI JUSTICEANIL KUMAR JUXANTI}

¶35

WRIT^{PETITIONNo.31886of 2OL7}

¶36

ORDER:

¶37

Thisu.ritpetitionisfilcdseekingtograntthefollor-l,ing

¶38

relief:

¶39

"... to issue^{on appropiate Writ order or Directton. more} ooiruloag^{one''in'thenature ol' Writ of M!:11:"t} "d;; ;' ;; ;, ;. i m p u o ne d^ct y^r o 7 . M " lvoi:,' ^ o l.l' / " :, oJ^lu i';^{t '} i ;'⁾ 2'"1 issued ':;;;;; in^{TibunalEnquint} ''ase 1 9.2017 ttv^{in' s'dresponden.t} ..1it!o"t irrtJ,,,ion ""^{ond irtuiolotion ofRult 9l:l(b)(,ii)d} 'i i.piro.a Pension Rules' u-thich^{causingpreJudtcetn} ;;r;;;; implementation^{of theorders posseLttn} 1;;'i" t iidas oi^{zo t z dateld 28'420 t 7 for reteasins futt} i"""i."- ""i^{ci"tuita therefore set aside,the} :"::^":i, '.orr"qr"ntlA direcl respontlenls lo^{releusc my lutt} i.iJlr,iror"uu ond^{otherretirementbenefits} immediatelA^{orrd to Pass""}

¶40

I I

¶41

submitted^bY 2. During^{thecourse ofhearing' ltts} Mr. K Ramatingeswara^{Rao, learnec.lcounscllor petitione r' thaL} the issue^{invc.rirrccl in this \'rii p'til'iL)n is squarelv covcred by} order,^{dated 07.122023, passed bv this Court in W P No 38 165} of 20 18. lt^{is furthe r submitted that this u'rit pe tition is [rled} challenging^{the charge memo' dated 2 l 'Oa'2O17 'in Tribunal} Enquiry^{Case No 6tof 2013sert'cd on 01 09 2017' whichis} jurisdiction and^{violation of Rule 9(2)(b)(ii) of} arbitrary,^without Rerrised^{Pension flules,198Olt isalso} Andhra^Pradesh submittedthatpetiLlonerhasbcetlpaidfr-ritpcnsionandother

¶42

benelits^{and urgt d lo quashthe impugned charge memo,dated} 2t.O8.2017

¶43

ln viet' ol^{the order, da"edO7 12 2023} '^{passedby this} the reasons^{alil'e, the} Court in^{W.P.No.3S 165 ol 2018 and for} rllou cd^{quashing thc impugncd chargcmemo'} \vrit pctlLlon^IS dated 2l.O8^{20I /There shall be no orderas to costs}

¶44

Miscellaneouspetitlonspending,ifany,shallstandc,losed

¶45

SD/-T. TIRUMALA VI ASSISTANT^{REGIS T,}

//TRUE COPY//

SECTION^OFFICER

The Principal^{Secretary to Government, Revenue(Excise'l) Department'} #;i;;i, st"te of^{T6langana at Hvderabad}

¶50

The Commission,rr.^{ot pr.onl6itiln'C'Eic-ise' state of Telangana'Hyderabad'} 3. +ffi #;iil,-i|.itrnar^{f"|.' Di;;'pii";|yProceedinss' Exhibition'3 rounds'} Namoallv, Stite^{()f Telangana, Hyderabad'}

¶51

ili"'bC{'t"'cF ion^{nEVEr'iue'tr'Cii"l'Hish courtror the state or} Telanqana^{at HYtlerabad' [OUTI}

¶52

ffi ic'i;^{Sirik.nArtrnLri'r-ee6wnnnRAo' Advocate [oPuc]} b. Two CD Copies iiil""n"*;,i;lopv^{ot the orderdatedoT'12'2023 in wP'No'3816s of 2018} io this order)

r.1'

HIGH COURT

DATED:2311012024

ORDER

WP.No.31886 of 2017

I
I ( o R 1 --:.:-- t,i S r.1.--l tr,'s.
oo 13 fu=

( oir rHl- s l4
o <br>o
t 13 NEU 2M i:l
t c,

PAt cHr-
lg

¶63

ALLOWING THE W.P WITHOUT COSTS.

¶64

\at\ -\ q Co(iA

¶65

THE HONOURABLE SHRI JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR JUKANTI WRIT PETITION No.38155 OF 2018

¶66

ORDER:

¶67

This Writ Petition is filed seeking a Writ of Mandamus declaring the impugned Charge Memo dated 03.08.2018 in Tribunal Enquiry Case No.658 of 2OL3 served on 16.08.2018, issued by respondent No.3 for the incident related to year of 2072, S illegal, arbitrary, without jurisdiction and in violation of the Rule 9(2)(b)(ii) of the Andhra Pradesh Revised Pension Rules, 19BO seeking a direction for releasing full pension and gratuity and other retirement benefits.

¶68

Sri K. Ramalingeswara Rao, learned counsel for petitioner and learned Government Pleader for Services-Ill for respondents

¶69

Brief facts of the case:

¶70

Petitioner retired from service on 28.O2.2014 on AS attaining the age of superannuation, while working Prohibition and Excise Inspector in Hyderabad Division. At the time of retirement, Vigilance Cases were pending vide Government Memo No.46427/Yig.V(2)/2012-1, dated

¶71

)

¶72

16.01.2013 rrgainst the petitioner. A Charge Merno vide Tribunal trn<1uiry Case No.658 of 2Of3 dated 16.O8.2018 was issued to the petitioner alleging irregularities and misconduct

¶73

I t is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner ttLat the petitioner retired from sen'ice on 28.O2.2014^(rn attaining the age of superannuatior and is getting provi:;ional pension of 7 5ok and pensionary benefits i.e., full sen.ice pension, commutation and grattrity are wrongfully withheld.

¶74

It is contended that the respondents 'without proving any guilt, withheld retirement benefits. That the Charge Memo vide Tribunal Enquiry Case No.658 of 2Ol3 issued is be,.,ond four (4) years and that the allegations pertain to ye.x 2072. It is submitted that no disciplinary proceedings were contemplated till 16.08.2018 tbr the alleged incirl<:nt of year 2012, which is beyond mor-e than four (4) years from the date of incident. That Rule 912)(b)(ii) of the Andhra Pradesh Revised Pension Rules, 1()BO, 1S violated. It is submitted that the petitioner is entir:led for

¶75

¶76

fuII pension and gratuity and other retirement benefits, as no charge memo is issued within a period of four (4) years.

¶77

It is contended by the learned counsel for the respondents that the petitioner while working AS Prohibition and Excise Inspector, involved in various irregularities and misconduct which is in violation of the Excise Act and Rules and thereby guilty of misconduct under the Rule 3(1)&(2) of the Telangana State Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1964 read with Rule 2(b) of the Telangana State Civil Services (Disciplinary Proceedings Tribunal) Rules, 1989 frarned under the Telangana State Civil Services (Disciplinary Proceedings Tribunal) Act, 1960 as amended in 1993. On the allegations that he abused his official position, Vigilance Cases were pending vide Government Memo No.46427/Vig.V(2)/2012-1, dated 16.01.2013 against the petitioner and a Charge Memo vide Tribunal Enquiry Case No.658 of 20 13 dated 16.O8.2018 was issued. Hence the initiation of disciplinary proceedings by the Tribunal is in accordance with law, for acts of misconduct of the petitioner. There is no illegality

¶78

¶79

or irreguiarity and as such there are no grounds^for interference

¶80

07 . Considered the submissions of learned counsels, perused the record. This Court is of the opinion that Rule 9 (12)(b)(ii) of Andhra Pradesh Revised F'ension Rules, 1980, is violated and proceedings have to be initiated withLn a period of four (4) years from the Cate of event/incident. In the present case, there is delay c)f more than four (4) l,ears

¶81

In a similar issue, a learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P. \o.4845 of 2Ol9 as follows:

¶82

Judicatu"e at Hgderabad for the State of Telangota and for 'he State of Andhra Pradesh, hos possed a commorl order dated 15.11.2018, in W.P.Nos. 255tr7, 26311 arrd 26381 of 2O18, bg relying on the^judgme'nt in State tf U.P. u. Shn Kishna Pandeg^1, utherein the Hon'ble ,Supreme Court, uthile de.aling with initiotion of a deytartmental enquiry against the respondent therein a-fter his retirement from seruice, obserued that as in Rule 9 (2) (b) (ii) of the Rules of 1980, Regulation 351-A oJ the Ciuil Seruices Regulations, tohich uzs under ccnsideration, prouided that departmennl proceed Lgs, if not instituted before retirement, sh,tll not be bstituted in respect of an euent uhich totk place mo,e than four gears before such institution, ts in Rule 9 (6) of the Rules of 198O, the Explanation to Regulation 351 A prouided that department aI proceedirt.gs shall be deemed to haue been instituted

¶83

'lreee;^{o scc :os}

¶84

¶85

when the charges framed against the pensioner were issued to him or from the date of his being placed under suspension, if applicable. Utimatelg the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that departmental proceedings must be instituted before lapse of four gears from the date on uhich the euent of misconduct had taken place."

¶86

This Court is not inclined to take a different view. In view of the above facts, impugned Charge Memo dated 03.08.2018, is liable to be quashed.

¶87

Writ Petition is allowed, quashing the impugned Charge Memo dated 03.08.2018 issued. The respondents are directed to frx 25o/o pension payable to the petitioner and pay the same and gratuity and other retirement benefits to the petitioner together with interest @ 9%" per annum from the date they become due till the date of payment. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶88

As a sequel, pending Miscellaneous Applications, if any, shall stand closed

¶89

JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR JUKANTI

¶90

Datc: 07-DEC 2023 Note: Registry is directed to annex a copy of Order dated 2O.1O.2O23 in W.P.No.4845 of 20 19 to this Order. B/o.KHRM

Y.Pushpa Raju, v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Y.Pushpa Raju, v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

D. Damodar Rao, Vs The Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation

Mohd.Ishaq Vs Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation

Malothu Ramulu, Khammam Dist and 4 Others Vs Chairman and Md, Ts Genco, Hyderabad and 4 Others

S.Krishna Vs The State of Telangana

The Depot Manager, Vs Dasari Venkata Dharma Reddy

M.Prakash, Vs Andhra Bank