The High Court allowed the writ petition challenging permanent pension cuts imposed under G.O.Rt.No.2079. The Court held that impugned orders were unsustainable as disciplinary proceedings lapsed beyond the time limit fixed by the Tribunal and the enquiry was void due to non-conduct of regular proceedings under Rule 20.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
[3219 ]
HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
THURSDAY, THE TWELFTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE T.MADHAVI DEVI
WRIT PETITION(TR ) NO: 5388 OF 2017
Between:
R. VITTAL, S/o. Gangaram, aged about 63 years, Panchayat Secretary (Retd), (Executive Officer Grade-l), R/o. H.No. 6-'1-'104, Ashoknagar, Karimnagar, Karimnagar District.
...PETITIONER
ANO
...RE'P.NDENT'
Petition under A(icle 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue to call for the records relating to the proceedings of the 1st respondent bearing No. G.O.Rt.No.2079, PR&RD (Vig.lll-A) Department, dt.16-122013 and set aside the same by declaring the same as illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional being violative of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of Constitution of lndia and consequently direct the respondents to release entire pensionary benefits of the applicant, with interest.
Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI SRINIVASA RAO MADIRAJU Counsel forthe Respondents: GP FOR SERVICES-I
The Court made the following: ORDER
J
I t
, I
THE IIONOTIITABLE, SMT. JUSTICET. MADHAVIDEVI
WRIl' PETITION(TR) No.5388 OF2!17
ORDER:
The petitioner hled O.A.No.726l of2015 before the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal(for short, "theTribunal") challenging the orders inG.O.Rt.No.2079, PR&RD(Vig.III-A) Department, dated 16.12.2013,imposing a penalty of l% cut-in- pension permanently on thepetitioner asillegal, arbitraryand unconstitutional and to set asidethe sameand consequentlyto direct the respondents to release theentire pensionarybenefits to the petitioner with interest and to pass such other orderor orders.
2
and 5389 of 2017 have been allowed by this Court vide common order dated I 1 .ll .2024 and prayed this Cou( to pass a similar order in this writ petition.
Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall also stand
dismissed.
I
To
---'--.-
SD/.8. CHANDRA PRAKASH ASSISTAN REGISTRAR
//TRUE COPYi/
SE ON OFFICER
\
(fo-ng lvitlr g copy of the order dated 11 .11 .2024 in Wp.(TR).Nos.5387 oF 2017 AND 5389 OF 20171 PSK. BS
HIGH COURT
DATED:1 211212024
ORDER
WP(TR).No.5388 ot 2017
1HE s14 16.
r:.
o ( t
t
ti 0 7 JAN 2025 2
<br>.|.
iS PATCH r-a
ALLOWTNG THE WR|T PETTT|ON(TR) WITHOUT COSTS
q
I )p
ft
THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE T, MADHAVI DEVI
WRIT PETITION(TRl Nos.5387 and 5389 OF 2OL7
COMMON ORDER:
Since the relief sought in both the writ petitiorls is similar, the same are heard together and are disposed of by this common and consolidated order.
w.P.(TE).No. 5387 of 2OL7
]Y.P.{rnt.No,Ss89o
WP(TR)_5i87 r389._2017
2
Department, dated 16.12.2013, imposing a penalty of 10% cut-in-pension permanently besides recovery of amounts on the petitioner as illegal, arbitrary and unconstih.rtionaland consequently to set aside the sarne and directthe respondents to release the entire pensionary benefits tothe petitioner with interest and to pass such other order or orders.
"(i). That Sri R. Vittal, Panchagat Secretarg, Gram PanchoAat Kothapallg of Tandoor Mondal had collected a huge amounts since his date of assumption charge and failed to remit the same in Gram Panchaaat accounts, which resultedthe salaries of the meniaLs who depended on thegeneral funds are heLp up due to tack of funds
(it). That le has acted beyond hb powers in granting the weekly market wtthout confirmation of the authoitg competent and aLso failed to remit the sale proceeds euen after lapse of (4) months peiod after auction Le. for the gear 2004-2O05.
wP(TR)_s387_5389 r017
(iii). That he has failed to distribuk the pension amounts to the old age perrcianers.
(iu). That he ha,s intentionallg extended his.leaue to escape from the enquiry being conducted for the tenure of Khanapur by Reuenue Diuisional Officer, NinnaL.
(u). That Si R. Vittal, Panchayat Secretary, Grarn Panchagat Kothopally is in practice to keep himself absent arLd retain the heaug co-sh balances with him."
4 (il. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, the said charge memo is not in accordance with Rule 20 ol' the Andhra Pradesh Civil Services (Classification Control and Appeal) Rules (for short, 'the Rules'), as the list of documents which are referred to in the said charge memo were not furnished to the petitioner and therefore, the initiatior-r of disciplinary proceedings is uoid ab initio. It is submitted that the petitioner has submitted a detailed explanation to the said charge memo on 13.10.2008 and though the Government has issued circular memos prescribing a time limit for completion of disciplinary enquiries as three months in simple cases and five to six months in complicated cases, the respondents have not conducted any enquiry in respect of the above mentioned charges. It is submitted that the Enquiry Officer has submitted his enquiry report holding the charges (i), (iii) and
wP(TR)_5187,5i8e_20 l 7
1
(iv) and charge (ii) as partly proved and charge (v) as proved and that respondent No.2 issued a memo dated 19.10.2O11 thereafter, calling for the expianation of the petiti0ner and the petitioner submitted his detailed explanation on 30. 1 1.2O 1 t and requested to drop further action.
4(ii). The petitioner was also issued a charge memo dated
31.10.2OO7, framing the following charges:
ti "i. That the Panchayat Secretory retained ca.s,h- balance on hand amounting to Rs. 1,00,000/ - and aboue without iemitting to tle Gr.Pt account.
tL That the Panchayat Secretary has failed to remit an amount of Rs. 2,02,256/- touards collection of uarious taxes of Gr.tt. os reported bg the AAO, 5.A., Adilabad Lr.No.35/AA/04, doted 06.0 1.05.
iit. That the Panchayat SecretarA has failed to remit the surcharge amount of Rs.21,580/- euen a"fter lapse of (3) years."
4(iiil. In this case also, it is alleged that the list of documents that are referred to in the charge memo were not furnished to the petitioner and therefore, according to the petitioner, the disciplinary proceedings are void ab initio. It is submitted that an Enquiry Officer and Presenting Officer were appointed thereafter uide proceedings dated L7 .04.2008
n
wP(rR)_5387_s389_20 I 7
issued by respondent No.2 and though the Governmenthas prescribed a time limit for completion of disciplinary proceedings i.e., three months in simple cases and six months in complicated cases, the respondents have not concluded the same and no regular enquiry as contemplated under Rule 20 of the Rules has been conducted and based on such a laconic enquiry, the Enquiry Of{icer has submitted his report holding the charges (i) and (iii) as proved and charge (ii) as not proved. 'lhereafter, respondent No.2 issued a memo dated 1 i.03.2010 calling for the explanation from the petitioner, for which thc petitioner has submitted his detailed explanation and requested to drop further action.
a(iv). It is submitted that challenging the charge memo dated 06.02.2010, the petitioner fi1ed O.A.No.3083 of 20L2. The Tribunal disposed of the said O.A. directing the respondents to Iinalize ali the 3 disciplinary cases initiated against the petitioner within a period of 3 months, otherwise to release the pensionary benehts to the petitioner. However, despite the cooperation of the petitioner, the disciplinary proceedings were not finalized within the time prescribed by the Tribunal and the entire pensionary benefits were not
WP(TR)_5387 5389 2017
6
released to the petitioner. However, after lapse of the time limit as prescribed by the Tribuna-l, a show cause notice dated 10.09.2013 -was issued by the Government i.roposing.a penalty of 7)o/o cut-in-pension besides recovery of the amount of Rs.68,26O/- in respect of the charge memo dated 31.10.2007. The petitioner submitted a detailed explanation on 26.09.2013 and requested to drop further action, but the same was not considered and respondent No. 1 issued impugned G.O.Rt.No.2080 dated 16.t2.2Ot3 imposing a le% cut-in-pension permanently, besides recovery of amount of Rs.68,260/-. Similarly, in respect of the charge memo dated 30.06.2008, the Government issued a show cause notice dated 10.09.2013 proposing a penalty of 4% cut-in-pension and the petitioner submitted his detailed explanation on 26.O9.2013 and requested to drop further action. However, the Government has issued impugned proceedings vide G.O.Rt.No.2081 dated l6.12.2Olg imposing a penalty of 4% cut-in-pension perrnanently. Challenging the said orders, ttrc petitioner has hled O.A.Nos.7262 of 201S afld Z260 of 2015 respectively, and on abolition of the Tribunal, the matters
wP(TR)_s387 5389 _20r7
have been transferred to this Court and numbered as W.P.(TR).Nos.5387 and 5389 of 2017 respectively.
( WP(TR)_5387 5389 2017
8
6 . Learned Government Pleader for the Services, on the other hand, reiied upon the averments made in the counter ;rffidavit filed before the Tribunal, and submitted that the charges have been framed against the petitioner lbr serious allegations of misappropriation of funds and the Enquiry Ofllcer has held some of the charges as proved and therefore, the disciplinary authority has correctly imposed the punishments. Therefore, he sought dismissal of the writ petitions.
7 . Having regard to the rival contentions and the material available on record, this Court llnds that admittedly the petitioner has been issued charge memos, which were challenged by tl-re petitioner before the Tribunal in O.A.No.3083 of 2012. The Tribunal has disposed ol the said O.A. with a direction to conclude the disciplinary proceedings within a time frame fixed by the Tribunal, failing which the entire pensionary benellts were to be released to the petitioner. Admitte dly, the respondents have not concluded the disciplinary proceedings within the time granted by the Tribunal and for the said reason alone, the respondents could
wP(TR)_53 87_53 89_20 r 7
9
not havepassed the order of punishmentsubsequentto the lapse of the time1imit.
wP(TR)_s3s7,s38e-2017 f}'
\
\
10
No order as g . Accordingly, theWrit Petitionsare allowed to costs.
1O, Pendingmiscellaneouspetitions, ifany, Petition sha1lalso stand dismissed'
1n this Writ
JUSTICE T.MADHAVI DEVI
Date: 1 1.77.2024 PRN
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the impugned orders imposing permanent pension cuts are sustainable when disciplinary proceedings were not concluded within the Tribunal's fixed time limit and the enquiry was non-compliant wi
Whether the enquiry conducted violated procedural requirements by failing to examine documents and witnesses as contemplated under applicable service rules.
Whether the petitioner is entitled to be directed to release entire pensionary benefits with interest.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
O.A.No.3083 of 2012Referred¶95
R. Vittal
The State of Telangana
T. Madhavi Devi
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
