Allowed

S.Krishna v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC23 Oct 2024WP/32055/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A single judge allowed the writ petition, quashing a charge memo issued by the disciplinary tribunal. The court held that because the incident occurred more than four years prior to the issuance of the charge, it violated the limitation period under Rule 9(2)(b)(ii) of the A.P. Revised Pension Rules, 1980, thereby mandating the restoration of the petitioner's full pension and gratuity.

What did the court decide?

Quashing of the impugned charge memo dated 21-08-2017 and direction to release full pension, gratuity, and other retirement benefits with interest.

S.Krishna Vs The State of Telangana — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2024)

¶1

[³³⁸⁴¹

¶2

¶3

Ar HYDERABAD rN rHE^{H.GH couRr} ir?:Jl,r"?.[fl53i,J5!-,i.IfiNA o Focro^BER wED^{N ES DAY' rH E rwEsl"-ll$,?} R+J

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE^{SRI JUSTICEANIL KUMARJUKANTI}

¶6

WRIT^PETITI ON NO:3 2055 OF 2017

¶7

Between: & Excise Retired^Proh SBI^Officers ColonY,

¶8

P;S:'$i',lir:?:"r"::'l?J"ft'lu1ln''zn?l.,ui,J?f{'l' ivii6ii-,imnasit,^HYderabad

¶9

^-?l:r"'^'r:",E1:i,'sli3:i"'f P,3Ll'35Jl3ii?.xi:,ff l""lxgi8""vernmnet'

¶10

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

¶11

its Secretary'^Exhibition

¶12

1. rhe^{rribunarfor Discrplinary} i,Sl?rXXjlii,"sbv Grounds,^{Nampatty' State orI Ercrr rear rq' L' -- -}

¶13

...RES,ONDENTS

¶14

PetitionUnderArticle226oftheConstitutionoflndiaprayingthatinthe circumstancesstatedintheaffidavitflledtherewith'theHighCourtmaybe pleased to issue^{an appropriateWrit' Orderor Direction more particularlyonein} the nature^{of Writ of Mandamus declarethe impugned Charge Memo dated- 21-8-} 2017 issued^{in Tribunal Enquiry CaseNo 60 of 2013and served on 31-B-2017'} bythe3rdrespondentwithoutjurisdictionandinviolationofRuleg(2)(bXii)of A.P. Revised^{Pension Rules,which causing prejudicein getting implementationof} the orders^{passed in W.P'No2O4OO of 2017 dated- 22-6-2017 for releasingfull} pension and Gratuity,^{therefore set aside the same and consequentlydirect} respondents to^{release my full Pension' Gratuity and other retirement benefits} immediatelY

¶15

¶16

¶17

l.A. NO: 1 oF 20 17(WP MP. NO: 39905 0F 2017t

¶18

Petition under section 151 cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fired in support of the petition, the High court may be preased to suspend the impugned charge Memo dated: zl -e-zolz issued by the 3rd respondent in Tribunal Enquiry Case No. 60 t2013

¶19

IA NO: 10F 2018

¶20

Between:

¶21

v e rn m n er,

¶22

' l:?"',T:i Ell: S l'B3;,1#^j#,,s jJ[;ji: i^.,i;JBl?flJi "

¶23

1. The Commissioner of prohibition & Excise, State of Telangana, Hyderabad

¶24

3 The Tribunal for Disciolir e rounoi, r.rlm"p,ii;:"di:?S?r?::3i83',ij'ri,?[i"rrits^secretary, Exhibition

¶25

AND

¶26

...PETITIONERS/RESPONDENTS

¶27

P-!1'.rln,^{s/o tate Sri Thirupathaiah,} aged 62 vears. Retired Proh & Excise tnspector . Hyderabad. r.lo 'ff.No-' 16-11-741tDt15,' SBI Officers rvroosarambagh. Hyderabad. Colony,

¶28

.RESPONDENT/PETITIONER

¶29

Petition under section '15'r cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to vacate the interim order dated: 21-0g-2017 passed in wp.No.3205 5 0f 2017.

¶30

Counsel for the petitioner : SRI K.RAMALINGESWARA RAO

¶31

Counsel for the Respondents: Gp FOR SERVICES llt

¶32

The Court made the following: ORDER

I I

THE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR JUKANTI

¶37

WRIT PETITION No.32O55 of 2OL7

¶38

ORDER:

¶39

This writ pctition is [rled sceking to grant the lollowing

¶40

relief

¶41

"... to issue an oppropnote Writ Ortler or l)irect{on nrcre parttallarl!/ orte rn tlte nature' oJ' W of Manclamus declare the impugned^(.)harge Memo dated 2 L8.201 7 lssued in^'fibunal Enquiry Case No.6O of 2013 and serued on 31.8.2017 by the 3rd respondent uithout jurisdiction and in uiolation of Rule 9(2)(b)(it) of A.P.Reutsed Pension Rules u,hich cousing prejudice [n getting impLementation o_[ the ord.ers passed in W.P.No.204O6 of 2017 duted 22.6.2017 for releosing futl pension and Gratuity therefore :;et aside the same and consequen"tLL.t diract respontlents lo releasc my lull Pension Gratuitl.l ancl other retiremenL benefits immediately and to pass..."

¶42

During thc colrrsc of hcanng, ;t is subrnitted by Mr. K. Ramerlinge slr'ara IQao, lcarncd counscl for petrtioner, that the issue invoh,cd in this u'rit pctillon rs squarely oovcred by order, dated 07.12.2023, passed by this Court in W.P.No.3S165 of 2018. It is furthcr submrtted that this writ petition is filed challenging thr: chargc rnemo, dated 2l.Oa.2O17, rn Tribur-ral trnquiry Casc No.6O ol 2013 ser/ed on 3L-O8.2OI7, which is arbitrary, u,ithout^jurisdiction and violation of Rule 9(2)(b)(ii) of Anclhra Pradeslr Revis<:d I)t:r-rsion Ilulcs, t980. It is also submiLtcd that petitioncr has bcen paid full pcnsion and other

:L.:.

":-1

benefiLs iutd urgcd to quash the impugnecl chargr. memo, dated 21.o8.20 t7

¶47

In vierv o[ the order, dated 07.12.2023. passed by this Court in W.I).No.38 165 of 20l8 and for the rcasons alike, the writ pctitiolt is allorvecl cluashir-rg thc irnltugncd ,.harge memo, dated 21.08.20 17.^'l'hcrc shzrll be no ordr:r as Lo costs.

¶48

Misccllaneous petitions pcnding, il any, shall stand closed.

¶49

SD/- P.Ch. NAGABHUSHA BA ASSISTANT REGIST

//TRUE COPY//

SECTION O FICER

To,

The Principal Secretary to Governmnet, Revenue (Excrse.l) Department, Secretariat, State of Telangana, Hyderabad.

¶54

The Commissioner of Prohibition & Excise, Stare of Telangana, Hyderabad.

¶55

The Secretary, Tribunal for Disciplinary Proceedings, Exhibition Grounds, Nampally, State of Telangana, Hyderabad.

¶56

One CC to SRI K.RAMALINGESWARA RAO, Advocate [OPUC]

¶57

Two CCs to GP FOR SERVICES lll, High Court for the State of Tetangana. lourl

¶58

Two CD Copies

¶59

(Along with a copy of the Order, dated 07-12-2023 in W.P.No 38165 of 2018 to this Order)

BSK

GJP

HIGH COURT

DATED:2311012024

ORDER

WP.No.32055 of 2017

/:a __ - _-'<br>-,-r, il ., ..i-
t,<br>-. .i' ,
.s l*'1
s i,'
\
.+ltl
:,
t,t i-..
' "-:-:':'lr.:''

¶68

ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS

¶69

,t,D

¶70

THE HONOURABLE SHRI JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR JUKANTI WRIT PETITION No. 38165 0F 2018

¶71

ORDER:

¶72

This Writ Petition is filed seeking a Writ of Mandamus declaring the impugned Charge Memo dated 03.0g.201g in Tribunal Enquiry Case No.65g of 2Ol3 served on 16.08.2018, issued by respondent No.3 for the incident related to year of 2012, as illegal, arbitrary, without jurisdiction and in violation of the Rule 9(2)(b)(ii) of the 'r\ndhra Pradesh Revised pension Rules, 19gO seeking a direction for releasing full pension and gratuity and other retirement benehts.

¶73

Sri K. Ramalingeswara Rao, learned counsel for petitioner and learned Government pleader for Serwices_Ill for respondents.

¶74

Brief facts of the case:

¶75

Petitioner retired from service on 2g -O2 .2014 on attaining the age of superannuation, while working as Prohibition and Excise Inspector in Hyderabad Division. At the time of retirement, Vigilance Cases were pending vide Government Memo No.46427/Vig.V(2ll2OI2_1, dated

¶76

i t__ il ti . /-.

¶77

¶78

16.01.2013 against the petitioner. A Charge Memo vide Tribunal trnquiry Case No.65B of 2Ol3 dated 16.08.2018 was issued to the petitioner alleging irregularities and misconduct

¶79

04 . It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that thr. petitioner retired from serwice on 28.02.2014 on attaining the age of superannuation and is getting provrsional pension of 7 5o/" and pensionary benefits i.e., full ser-vice pension, commutation and gratuity are wrongfully withheld

¶80

It is contended that the respondents without proving any guilt, ',vithheld retirement benefits. That the Charge Memo vide Tribunal Enquiry Case No.658 of 2013 issued is beyond four (4) years and that the allegations pertain to year 2Ol. It is submitted that no disciplinary proceedings were contemplated till 16.08.2018 for the aileged incident of year 2012, which is beyond more than four (4) years from tire date of incident. That Rule 9(2)(b)(ii) of the Andhra Pradesh Revised Pension Rules, 1980, IS violated. 11. is submitted that the petitioner is entitled for

¶81

¶82

¶83

full pension and gratuity and other retirement benefits, as no charge memo is issued within a period of four (4) years. 06. It is contended by the learned counsel for the S respondents that the petitioner while working Prohibition and Excise Inspector, involved in various irregr,rlarities 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 framed 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.46427lYig.V(2)l2Ol2-1, dated 16.01.2O13 against the petitioner and a Charge Memo vide Tribunal Enquiry Case No.658 of 2073 dated i6.08.2018 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 iilegality

¶84

¶85

r;,rs, ..&

¶86

or irreg.rlarity and as such there are no grounds for interference.

¶87

07 . Considered the subrnissions of iearned counsels, perused the record. This Court is of the opinion that Rule 9(2)(b)(ii) of Andhra Pradesh Revised Pension Rules, 1980, is violated and proceedings have to be initiated within a period of four (4) years from the date of event/incident. In the present case, there is delay of more than four (4) years.

¶88

In a similar issue, a learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.No.4845 of 2079 as follows:

¶89

Judicature at Hgderabad for the State of Telangana a.nd for the State of Andhra Pradesh, ho's passed o common order dated 15.11.2O18, in W.P.Nos. 25587, 26311 and 26381 of 2018, bg relying on the^judgment in Stcfie of U.P. u. Shn Kishna Pondegl, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court, u-thile dealing utith initiation of a deportmental enquiry against the respondent therein after his retirement from seruice, obserued that as in RuLe 9 (2) (b) (ii) of the Rules of 198O, ReguLation 3 5 1 -A of the Ciuil Seruices Regulotions, tuhich utas under consideration, prouided that departmental proceedings, if not ittstituted before retirement, shall not be instituted in respect of an euent uhich took place more than four gears before such institution, as in Rule 9 (6) of the Rules of 198O, the Explanation to Regulation 351-A prouided that departmental proceedings shall be deemed to haue been instituted

'^{(tggo)q scc lgs}

LDhen the charges fromed ogainst the pensioner utere issued to him or from the date of his being placed under suspension, if applicoble. Utimotelg the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that departmental proceedings must be instihtted before lapse of four gears from the date on tuhich the euent of misconduct had taken place."

¶94

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

¶95

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

¶96

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

¶97

JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR JUKANTI

¶98

Date: O7-DEC-2023

¶99

Note: ReBistry is directed to annex a copy oI Order dated 2O.1O.2O23 i.n W.P.No.4845 of 2019 to this Order. B/o.KHRM

S.Krishna v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S.Krishna 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

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

Y.Pushpa Raju, Vs The State of Telangana

The Depot Manager, Vs Dasari Venkata Dharma Reddy

M.Prakash, Vs Andhra Bank