Allowed

Maroju Upender v. The State of Telangana, And 4 Others

Telangana HC9 Sept 2025WP/10301/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A retired Senior Assistant challenged departmental proceedings and a charge memo initiated six-and-a-half years after his superannuation for alleged missing records, while his pension was withheld. Holding that the proceedings violated the four-year embargo in Rule 9(2)(b), the court quashed the charge memo and directed release of pensionary benefits within eight weeks.

What did the court decide?

Impugned G.O.Rt.No.416 dated 06.09.2018 set aside; respondents directed to release petitioner's pensionary benefits as per entitlement within eight weeks, without costs.

Maroju Upender Vs The State of Telangana… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2025)

¶1

132s21

¶2

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

¶3

TUESDAY, THE NINTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MRS JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO: 10301 OF 2021

¶7

Between:

¶8

Maroju .Upender, S/o. Satyanarayana, Aged 65 years, Occ ; Retired Senior Assistant, O/o. District Registrar Office, Warangal, RJo 6-33, Chagal Village, Station Ghanpur Mandal, Warangal Diskict.

¶9

...,.PETITIONER

¶10

AND

¶11

The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Revenue (Registration and Stamps) Department, Telangana Secretariat, Hyderabad

¶12

The Principal Account General, (A and E), Telangana State, Saifabad, Hyderabad-4.

¶13

The Commissioner and lnspector General of Registration And Stamps, Government of Telangana, lr4.J.Market, Hyderabad.

¶14

The Deputy Inspector General, of Registration and Stamps, Warangal.

¶15

The District Registrar, Warangal District, Warangal.

¶16

.....RESPONDENTS

¶17

Petition Under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a Writ, Order or Direction especially one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring that a) G.O.Rt.t'to.+tO dated 06/09/2018 issued by 1st respondent as illegal and arbitrary and therefore liable to be set a side. b) Declare that action of the respondent in not paying the full pension to the petitioner and not releasing the pensionery benefits payable to the petitioner is illegal, arbitrary and discriminatory, violating Art.14, 16, 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of lndia. c) Further declare that petitioner is entitled to get his pension fixed and entitled for

¶18

the release of his pensionery benefits, forthwith, along with or 24percent interest per annam.

¶19

l.A.NO:1 OF 201!.1

¶20

Petition Under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the operation of the orders issued in G.O.Rt.No.416 dated 06/09/2018 pending disposal of the writ petition.

¶21

Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI SRINIVASA RAO MADIRAJU

¶22

Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1, 3 to 5 : GP FOR SERVICES - ll

¶23

Counsel for the Respondent No.2 : SRI K.BALAKRISHNA

¶24

The Court made the following ORDER

¶25

HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA

¶26

WRIT PETITION No.1O3O1 OF 2021

¶27

ORDER:

¶28

l{eard Sri M. Srinivasa Rao, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the gretitioner, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Services-Il appearing orr behalf of tlre respondent Nos,l, 3 to 5 and Sri K. Balakrishna, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.2-.

¶29

2, The^petitioner approached this Court seekino the Draver as under:

¶30

"...to issue a Writ, Order or Direction especially cne in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declar-ing that a) G.O.Rt.tlo.416 dated 06.09.2018 issued by the 1't respondent as illegal and arbitrary and therefore liable to be set aside, b) declare that action of the respondent in not^paying the full pension to the petitioner and not releasing the pensionery benefits payable to the petitioner is illegal, arbitrary and discriminatory, violating Art.14, 16, 21 & 300-4 of the Constitution of India, c) Further declare that petitioner is entitled to get his pension fixed atrd entitled for the release of his pensioner benefits, fofthwith along with @ 2470 interest per annum, and pass such order or orders..."

¶31

The case oF the petitioner in brief is that initially the petitioner joined into service as Attender on 01.04.1982 in District Registrar's Office, Warangal and then got^promoted as

¶32

SN, J wP 10301 202t

¶33

¶34

Junior Assistant in the year 2Ol2 and thereafter^promoted as Senior Assistant during the year 2013. The petitioner retired from the service on 30.06.2014. Though the petitioner retired from service way back in the year 20t4, his pension and pensionery benefits have not been released and no charge memo was pending against the petitioner, as on the date of the petitioner's retirement.

¶35

it is further the case oF the petitioner that in the said circumstances, the petitioner approached the A.P. Administrative Tribunal and filed O.A.No.7115 of 2015, seeking release of petitioner's pension and pensionery benefits. The Tribunal disposed of the said O.A., vide order dated 28.0i.2016 directing the District Registrar, Warangal to forward the^pension papers along with all necessary certificates to the Principal Secretary and fufther directed the Principal Secretary to^pass necessary orders within 6 weeks thereof. Despite the said order, the respondent did not release the pension and pensionery benefits to the petitioner and surprisingly the 1tt respondent issued G.O.Rt.No.416 dated 06.09.2018 framing the following Charge against the petitioner.

¶36

ARTICLE OF CHARGE:

¶37

That Sri M. Upender is responsible for missing of permanent volumes (07) i.e., 99(Book-l), 112(Book-1),

¶38

¶39

SN, J w? l0l0t 2021

¶40

569(Book-I), 213(Plan),517 (Plan) and l37t while acting as Record Assistant in R.O., Warangal fro,'n 0105.2012 to 30.06.2014. Thus, he has violated the C&IG Proceedings I'lo.G1/24170/'/7, dtd:12.09.1977 and standing order 11i7 and therefore has violated Rule 3(1), (2), (3) of Telangana Civil Scrvices (Conduct) Rules, 1964. Hence, the Charge.

¶41

The petitioner subrnitted his reply oo 07.02.20L9, to the charge rnemo issued to the petitioner, but however, the respondents did not release the pensionery beneFits to the petilioner. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed the pi-esent lvrit pctition.

¶42

4. PERUSED THERECOSD:-

¶43

(A) The counter affidavit filed on behalf of the 1st resDondent, in Darticular, the relevant oaraoraohs are extracted hereunder:

¶44

"It is submitted that the petitioner, while discharging his duties as Record Keeper of the office of the District Registrar Warangal violated the orders of the Inspector General of Registration & Stamps AP Hyderabad vide proceedings No.S1/24170/77, dated l2-9-L977 and the standing orders No.1116, LlL7, 1132, LL49, 1150 & 1157 caused loss of permanent Book-I Registers and other records.

¶45

SN, J wP 10301 2021

¶46

¶47

It is submitted that it can be understood that the petitioner has willfully delayed two months (May & June 2014) in handing over charge of the records till 30-6-2014 the date on which he retired, assuming departmental disciplinary proceedings as well as criminal^proceedings. Though he promised to trace out the missing records and submit his explanation did not turn up.

¶48

It is submitted that as since the petitioner has retired on 30-6-2014 before institution of departmental proceedings against him for loss permanent records and the time limit of 4^{years prescribed} in Rule 9(2)(b)(ii) of the Revised Pension Rules, 1980 the matter has been reported to the Government which is the competent authority to institute departmental proceedings. Thus the Ri has accorded sanction under Sub Clause (i) of Clause (b) of Sub Rule 2 of Rule 9 of T. S. Revised Pension Rules 1980., vide GO MS No. 197 Revenue (Vigilancel) Dept. Dated 06-9-2018 and issued Article of charges in GO Rt. No.4l6 Revenue (Vigilance-1) Dept., dated 06-9-2018 against the petitioner (copy annexed).

¶49

In response to the said GO's, the petitioner in his representation dated 24-LO-2018 addressed to the Respondent No.4, cleverly stated that he came to know that certain records rarere ntissing in the record room and requested to supply the records to enable him to submit his written statement of defence (copy annexed). He was supplied with the copies of the records. The petitioner has submitted his written statement of defence dated

¶50

SN. J \t? t0301 2021

¶51

the 07.02.2019 to the Special Chief Secretary to Government Revenue (Vigilance-1) Department Telangana Government with reference to the GO MS No. 197 Rev (Vig-1) department dated 06-9-2018 and GO Rt No.416 Rev

¶52

(Viq-1) Department, dated. 06-9-2018 under intimation to the District Registrar, Warangal R4 and the Dy. Inspector General (Regn. & Stamps) Warangal R3.

¶53

Para Nos. 10 & 11:- it is submitted that the Government being the sole and competent authority accorded sanction under Rule 9 (2) (b) (i) (ii) of TS Revised Pension Rules 1980 in view of the condition of 4 years imposed in the said Rule vide G.O Ms No. 197, Rev (Vig-1) Department, dated: 06-9-2018 for petitioner who is retired employee and accordingly Government have framed. charges and issued Articles of charges vide G.O.Rt.No. 4L6 Rev.(Vig-1) Department, dated 06-9-2018 and in response to the Articles of charges, the delinquent office r/petitioner had submitted his written statement of defence dated 07-022019 as admitted in the affidavit. Government, after careful examination of the WSD of the delinquent, as it was not convincing, the Sub-Registrar, R.O, Warangal(Urban) & Senior Assistant, R,O., Warangal(Urban) were appointed as Regular Enquiry Officer & Presenting Officer to inquire into the charge framed against Sri M.Upender, Senior Assistant, R.O. Warangal (Retired), vide G.O.Rt.No.4L7 & 418, Revenue (Vigilance-I) Dept., Dated:ll-l0-202L, respectively. The REO has been directed to submit his inquiry report within a

¶54

sN. l wP 10101 2021

¶55

¶56

month to the Government for taking, further action in the matter. The REO report is still awaited in the matter.

¶57

Para Nos. 12 & 13:- It is submitted that as per G.O.Rt. No.1097, Fin.&Plg. (FW.Pen.I) Dept., dt: 22.06.2000 the GPF amount was paid in full and provisional pension @ 75o/o is being paid. The Government servants will be paid gratuity as a gratitude for their sincere and clean service rendered. The Government have power to with hold gratuity in total or part payable to the retired Government servants. However, the petitioner was sanctioned B0o/o of the retirement gratuity as per G.O. Ms.No.227 Fin (Pen.I) Department, Dated.29-05-2001, vide letter No.AalNDC/536/ 2074, Dated. 2-06-20t7 addressed to the Principal Accountant General, AP and TS, Hyderabad.

¶58

It is respectfully submitted that, as put forth in the preceding paras, the petitioner ls already in receipt of Provisional Pension under Rule 52 of the AP Revised Pension Rules, 1980 and B0o/o of the retirement gratuity as per G.O. Ms.No.227 Fin (Pen.I) Department, Dated.29.05.2001.

¶59

(B) Rute-9(2)(b) of the Revt d Pension Rules, 1980, is

¶60

extracted h reun d er

SN, J wP 10301 2021

,,.)

"R-9(2)(b): The Departmental proceedings, if not instituted while the Government servant was in service, whether before his retirement or during his re-employment: (i) Shall not be instituted save with the sanction of the Govern ment.

¶65

(ii) Shall not be in respect of any event which took place more than four years before such institution; and

¶66

(iii) Shall be conducted by such authority and in such place as the State Government may direct and in accordance with the procedure applicable to departmental proceedings in which an order of dismissal from service could be made in relation to the Government servant during hls service.

¶67

¶68

G,O.Ms.No,197 issued bv the 1"t resD o ndenti s extracted

¶69

hereunder:

¶70

"GOVERNMENT OF TELANGANA

¶71

ABSTRACT

¶72

PUBLIC SERVANTS - Telangana Civil Services (Ex.Br) - Registration and Stamps Department - Departmental proceedings against Sri M.Upender, Senior Assistant of Registrar Office, Warangal (Retired on 30.06.2014) - Sanction to initiate departmental sanction under Rule 9 of Telangana Revised

¶73

Pension Rules, 1980 - Orders - Issued.

¶74

REVENUE (VIGILANCE-I) DEPARTMENT

¶75

G.O.Ms.No.197 Date: 0 6.0 9.2018

¶76

ORDER:

¶77

Whereas, it has been brought to the notice of the Government that Sri M.Upender, Senior Assistant of Registrar Office, Warangal (Retired on 30.06.2014) while working as Record Keeper from 18.05.2012 to 18.06.2014 has committed

¶78

SN, J wP r0l0l 2021

¶79

¶80

certain irregularities i.e., for missing of⁽⁰⁷⁾ Pernlanent Record Volumes during his tenure.

¶81

Now, therefore, sanction is hereby accorded under sub clause (i) clause (b) of sub rule (2) of Rule 9 of Telangana Revised Pension Rules, 1980 to initiate departmental proceedings against Sri M.Upender, Senior Assistant of Registrar OFfice, Warangal (Retired on 30.06.2014).

¶82

Il, is further directed that the said departmental proceedings shall be conducted in accordance with the procedure laid down under rule 20 of Telangana Civil Services ( Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1991.

¶83

(BY ORDER AND IN THE NAME OF THE GOVERNOR OF TELANGANA)

¶84

RA]ESHWAR TIWARI SPECIAL CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT

¶85

(D) Ci.O.Ms.No,416 issued bv the 1st vs5pondent

¶86

dated O6,09.2O18 is extracted hereunder:

¶87

"GOVERNMENT OF TELANGANA

¶88

ABSTRA CT

¶89

PUBLIC SERVANTS - Registration and Stamps Department - Sri M.Upender, Senior Assistant of Registrar OFfice, Warangal (Retired on 30.06.2014) - Departmental proceedings under Rule 20 of the Telangana Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1991 - Article of Charges - Issued.

¶90

REVENUE (VIGILANCE-I) DEPARTM ENT

¶91

G.O.Ms.No.416

¶92

Date: 06.09.2018. Bead-.:

¶93

G.O. Ms. No. 197, Revenue (Vig.I ) Department, Dt.06.09.20 18.

¶94

o R_P_E__(j

¶95

In pursuance of the sanction accorded by the Government under sub clause (1) of clause (b) of sub-rule (2) of Rule 9 of Revised Pension Rules for instituting departmental proceedings against Sri M.Upender, Senior Assistant vide Government Order

¶96

¶97

SN, J w}' t0l0l 2021

¶98

read above/ it is proposed to hold an enquiry against Sri M.Upender, Senior Assistant of Registrar Office, Warangal (Retired on 30.06.2014) in accordance with the procedure laid down in Rule 20 of Telangana Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1991.

¶99

The substance of the imputations of misconduct or misbehavior in respect of which the inquiry is proposed to be held is set out in the enclosed statement of articles of charges (Annexure-I). A statement of imputations of misconduct or misbehavior in support of each article of charge is enclosed (Annexure-Il). A list of documents by which, and a list of witnesses by whom, the articles of charge are proposed to be sustained are also enclosed (Annexure IU and IV).

¶100

Sri M.Upender is hereby directed to submit a written statement of his defence within (10) days from the date of receipt of this o rder.

¶101

Sri M.Upender is hereby informed that, an inquiry will be held only in respect of those article of charges that are not admitted. He should, therefore, specifically admit or deny each a rticle of .charge.

¶102

Sri M.Upender is further informed that, if he does not submit his written statement of defence on or before the date specified in Para(3) above, further action will be processed based on the material available.

¶103

Attention of Sri M.Upender is invited to Rule 24 of the Telangana Civil Services (Conduct Rules, 1964, under which no Government Servant shall bring or attempt to bring any political or outside influence to bear upon any superior authority to further his interests in respect of matters pertaining to his service under the Government, if any representation is received on his behalf from another person, in respect of any matter dealt with in these proceedings, it will be presumed that. he is aware of such a representation and that it has been made at his instance and action will be taken against him for violation of Rule (24) of the Telangana Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1964.

¶104

Sri M.Upender, Senior Assistant of Registrar Office, Warangal (Retired on 30.06.2014) is specifically informed that this Government Order does not preclude the disciplinary authority to frame fresh charges, if any on other irregularities if any are noticed during the course of disciplinary action.

¶105

SN, J wP l0l0l 2021

¶106

¶107

The receipt of the Government Order should be acknowledged.

¶108

(BY ORDER AND IN THE NAME OFTHE GOVERNOR OF TELANGANA)

¶109

RA]ESHWAR TIWARI SPECIAL CHIEF SECRETAR.Y TO GOVERNMENT"

¶110

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION:

¶111

It is the specific case of the petitioner that petitioner retired on superannuation on 30.06.2014 as Senior Assistant of Registrar of Warangal and on the ground that whlle the petitioner was working as Record Keeper from 18.05.2012 to 18.06.2014, the petitioner had committed certain irregularities pertaining to missing of (07) Permanent Record Volumes during the petitioner's tenure and on the said allegations vide the impugned G.O.Ms.No.197 dated 06.09.2018 departmental proceedings had been initiated against the petitioner and sanction had been accorded to initiate the said proceedings by the Government under sub clause (i) clause (b) of sub rule (2) of Rule 9 of Telangana Revised Pension Rules, 1980. Aggrieved by the same, the^petitioner approached the Court.

¶112

Learned counsel appearing on behalf oF the petitioner mainly puts forth the following submissions:

SN. J wP t0i0t 2021

,i<br>

The (i) impugned proceedings dated 06.09.2018 vide G.O.Ms.No.197 issued under Rule 9 of Telangana ReviseC Pension Rules, 1980 and consequentially G.O.Rt.No.416 dated 06.09.2018 framing certain specific Article of Charges against the^petitioner are totally unwarranted and unlawful since the petitioner retired from service way back on 30.06.2014 and the impugned disciplinary proceedings had been initiated after 61/2 years of^petitioner's retirenlent.

¶117

(ii) The impugned Memo vide G.O.Ms.No.197 dated 06.09.2018 and the consequential Memo vide G.O.Rt.No416 dated 06.09.2018 clearly indicates that the allegations levelled against the petitioner pertained to the alleged irregularities committed cluring the period from 18.05.2012 to 18.06.2014 and therefore, the very issuance of the impugned Memo dated 06.09.2018 and article of charges dated 06.09.2018 are only with a malafide intention to harass the petitioner with an honest retirement.

¶118

(iii) The impugned proceedings were hit by the embargo under Rule 9(2)(b) of the Revised Pension Rule, 1980, and therefore, the learned counsel for the^petitioner

¶119

SN, J vv? t030 r²⁰²¹ lr

¶120

¶121

contends that the^petitioner is entitled for the

¶122

relief as prayed for in the present writ^petition.

¶123

Learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing on behalf oF the respondents placing reliance on the averments made in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent No.1(referred to and extracted above) contends that while the petitioner was discharging his duties as Record Keeper of the Office of the District Registrar, Warangal, the petitioner had committed certain violations, due to which response was called from the petitioner by framing certain specific charges vide Charge Memo dated 06.09.2018 and petitioner had submitted his written statement of defence dated 07.02.2019 and an inquiry officer was appointed to inquire into the said charge framed against the petitioner and the presenting officer was also appointed and the regular enquiry officer was called upon to submit the enquiry report for taking further action in the matter and report of the Regular Enquiry Officer's report was still awaited. Further, the GPA amount was paid in full and provisional pension @ 75o/o is being paid. The petitioner was sanctioned B0o/o of the retirement gratuity as per G.O., and therefore the writ petition needs to be dismissed and rnarrants no interference by this Court.

¶124

SN, J 13 wf t0l0l 2021

¶125

l -'i

¶126

B. A bare perusal of the impugned G.O.Ms. No.197 dated 06.09.2018, the 1': respondent herein and the consequential proceedings vide G.O. Rt. No.4 16 dated 06.09.20 18 issued to the petitioner herein clearly indicate that the subject issue pertains to the irregularities alleged to have been committed by the petitioner while the petitioner was working as Record Keeper from 18.05.2012 to 18.06.2014 and the petitioner retired on superannuation on 30.06.2014, the inrpugned disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the petitioner not only after a period of 6^1/z years on retirement from the service of the petitloner but also they pertained to irregularities of the period between May, 2012 to June 2014.

¶127

Further a bare perusal of Rule 9(2)(b) of Revised Pension Rules, 1980 (referred to and extracted above) clearly indicates that the departmental proceedings shall not be initiated in respect of in any event which took place more than four years before such institution. In the^present case, the order lmpugned dated 06.09.2018 itself reflects that the very institution of disciplinary^proceedings against the petitloner by issuance of charge Memo dated 06.09.2018 is hit by the embargo under Rule 9(2)(b) of the Revised Pension Rules, 1980 (referred to and extracted above), and hence this Court opines that there is no

¶128

SN, J wP 10301 2021

¶129

¶130

justification in continuation of such departmental proceedings in view of the clear embargo under the relevant Rule 9(2)(b) of the Revised Pension Rules, 1980 and also in view of the fact that the petitioner's superannuation was on 30.06.2014 and the disciplinary^proceedings had been initiated 6 7z^years after petitioner's retirement and the said disciplinary proceedings pertained to alleged irregularities alleged to have been committed by the petitioner during the period May 2Ol2 to June 2014. This Court opines that the pleas put forth by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents placing reliance on the averments made in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents are untenable and hence rejected.

¶131

The Division Bench of this Court in its Judqment dated 15.11.2O18^passed in W.P.Nos.2558/, 26311 and 26381 of 2O18 dealino with identical situation_ observed as under:

¶132

l'In^{the cases on hand, we find that the verv} institution of disciolinary oroceedinos- aqaanst the oetitioner bv issuance of Charoe Memos in 2017 was hit bv the embaroo under Rule 9(2)(b)(ii) of the Rules 198O. Erqo, we cannot oermit co ntinuation of such deoartmental oroceedinqs in the nAme of doino

¶133

SN. J !l,? 10301 2021

¶134

¶135

¶136

ttlC.rcly__begalfse_ serious

¶137

alleoations were leuelled against the oetitioner.

¶138

The writ petitions are accordingly allowed quashinE the Charge Memos clated 27.|i.2017, 2I.06.2017 arr<l 15.09.2017. The common order dated 13.06.2018^passed by the Tribunal in O.A.Nos.3483, 2912 and 3046 of 2077 shall stand set aside. The fincling of the Tribunal therein to the effect that Rule 9(2Xb)(ii) and 9(6) of thc Rules 1980 have no application to a case refeired to the Tribunal foi Disciplinary Proceedings urrder Section 4 of the Act of 1960 is held to be without legal basis. The petitioner is held entitled to his full pension and other retirement benefits. Respondents 1 and 2 shall endeavour to release the same expediticusly and, in any event, not later than eight rveeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order."

¶139

The Aoex Court Ju-doment reoorted in^(1996'1 9 Suoreme Court Cases 395 in "STATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER v. SHRI KRISHNA PANDEY", in^particular at para 6 observed as uuler:

¶140

"It would thus be seen that proceedings are required to be instituted against a delinquent officer before retirement. There is no specific provision allowing the officer to continue in service nor any order^passed to ailow him to continue on re-employment till the enquiry is completed, without allowing him to retire from service. Equally, there is no^provision that the^proceedings be initiated as disciplinary measure and the action initiated

¶141

. SN, J vP t030r 2021

¶142

¶143

¶144

earlier would remain unabated after retirement. If Rule 351-A is to be operative in respect of pending proceedings, by necessary implication, prior sanction of the Governor to continue the proceedings against him is required. On the other hand, the rule also would indicate that if the officer caused pecuniary loss or committed embezzlement etc. due to misconduct or negligence or dereliction of duty, then proceedings should also be instituted after retirement against the officer as expeditiously as possible. But the events of misconduct etc. which may have resulted in the loss to the Government or embezzlement, i.e., the cause for the institution of proceedings, should not have taken place more than four years before the date of institution of proceedings. In other words, the departmental proceedings must be instituted before lapse of four years from the date on which the event of misconduct etc. hao taken place. Admittedly, in this case the officer had retired on March 31, 1987 and the proceedings were initiated on April 21, 1991. Obviously, the event of embezzlement which caused pecuniary loss to the State took place prior to four years from the date of his retirement. Under these circumstances, the State had disabled itself by their deliberate omissions to take appropriate action against the respondent and allowed the officer to escape from the provisions of Rule 351-A of the Rules. This order does not preclude proceeding with the investigation into the offence and taking action thereon.

¶145

SN, J &T 10301 2021

¶146

¶147

L2. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Dev Prakash Tiwari Vs. U.P. Co-operative Institutional Service Board reoorted in⁽²⁰¹⁴⁾ 7 SCC 260 in oara 8 while reiteratinq the law laid down bv the Hon'ble Supreme Court in ..BHAGIRATHI]ENA VS. BOARD OF DIRECTORS, O.S.F.C.", observed at oaras 8,9 alrd 1O as under :

¶148

"Para 8. Once the appellant had retired from service on 31.3.2009, there was no authority vested with the respondents for continuing the disciplinary proceeding even for the purpose of impcsing any reduction in the retiral benefits payable to the appellant. In the absence of such an authority it must be held that the enquiry had lapsed and the appellant was entitled to get full retiral benefits.

¶149

Para 9. The question has also been raised in the appeal with regard to arrears of salary and allowances payable to the appellant during the period of his dismissal and up to the date of reinstatement. Inasmuch as the inquiry had lapsed, it is, in our opinion, obvious that the appellant would have to get the balance of the emoluments payable to him.

¶150

Para 10. The appeals are, therefore, allowed and the judgment and order of the High Court are set aside and the respondents are directed to pay arrears of salary and allorryances^payable to the appellant and also to^pay him all his retiral benefits in accordance with the rules and regulations as if there had been no disciplinary^proceeding or order passed therein. No costs."

SN, J w? 10301 2021

This Court opines that in view of the clear observations of the Apex Court in the Judgments referred to and extracted above, and Rule 9(2)(b)(ii) of Revised Pension Rules, 198O referred to and extracted above, the petitioner is entitled for the relief as prayed for in the present writ petition.

¶155

L4. Ta l<inru-n!g_ee!!gj-dCla!iO-nj.

¶156

(A)^'llhe aforesaid facts and circumstances of the ca se/

¶157

(B) The submissions made by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing'on behalf of the respo nd ents,

¶158

(C)^'[he averments made in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent No.1 (referred to and extracted above),

¶159

(D) Rule-9(2) (b) of the Revised Pension Rules, 198O, (referred to and extracted above),

¶160

(E) The contents of the impugned G.O.Ms.No.197 dated O6.09.2O18 and the contents of the G.O.Rt.No.416 dated O6.09.2O18 (referred to and extracted above),

¶161

(F) The view of the Apex Court and Division Bench of this Court in the Judgments referred to above and again enlisted below:

¶162

SN. J wP t030 t 202t

¶163

¶164

(i) Division Bench of this Cotrrt in its Judgment dated 15.11.2018 passed in W.P.Nos.25587, 26311 and 26381 of 2O18,

¶165

(ii) (1996) 9 Suprer+e Court Cases 395

¶166

(iii) (2014) 7 SCC 260 itr para 8

¶167

(G) In the light of discussion and conclusion as arrived at Paras 5 to 13 of the present order,

¶168

(H) The fact that the petitioner superannuated on 3O.06,2O14 and the fact borne on record that the disciplinary proceedings have been inltiated after 6 7: years after superannuation of the petitioner and further the fact that the subject issue pertairrs to irregularities committed during the period 18.O5.2012 to 18.O6.2014,

¶169

The Writ Petition is allowed as prayed for and the impugned proceedings vide c.O.Rt.No.416 dated O6.O9,2O1a issugd by the l't respondent is set aside. The respondents are directed to release the pensionery benefits payable to the petitioner as per petitioner's legal entitlement, within a period of eight (O8) weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

¶170

Miscellaneous petitions, if any, p=enditg. in this Writ

¶171

Petition, shall stand closed.

¶172