Allowed

K.Jyothi v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC2 May 2025WP/43681/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A Junior Accountant challenged an order revising her earlier punishment of censure and recovery to stoppage of one increment with cumulative effect. The court allowed the writ petition in terms of its order in W.P.No.43697 of 2018 and set aside the impugned revisionary order.

What the court decided

AI extract

K.Jyothi Vs The State of Telangana — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2025)

¶1

[³³⁰⁰ ]

¶2

HIGH COURT^{FOR THE STATEOF TELANGANA} AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶3

FRIDAY,THE^{SECOND DAY OF MAY} TWO THOUSAND^{AND TWENTY FIVE}

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE^{SRI JUSTICE NAGESHBHEEMAPAKA}

¶6

WRIT PETITI^{ON NO:4368 10F 2018}

¶7

Between:

¶8

K.Jvothi, Wo.Late^{K.Parshuram,Aged 57 years' Occ'' Govt} Service, iii';H:i'ib.i-i:in8tsid,^{owaisi Nasar] Amberpet' Hvderabad'}

¶9

.,.PETITIONER

¶10

AND

¶11

1 The State of Telanqana, Rep^{by its Secretary' Finance'(Admin'l)'} #Htffi;"i, su.i"iiriii^{auiiolngs, Secretariat, Hvderabad'}

¶12

? The Director of Treasury^{andAccounts, Governmentof Telangana' lnsurance} - Building, Ablds, Hydqrabad - 500 001'

¶13

3 The Joint^{Direqtor, O/o'JqintDi!-ector,Pension Payment Qffice' M J Road'} Hydeiabad^{- 500 001}

¶14

...RE$PONDENTS

¶15

Petition under^{Article226 ol the conqtitution qf lndia prayingthat in the} fited iherewith.^{the Hish Qsurt mavbe} "ir"rrlt7'"'"I* ;i;;#i.^{E;" "il+o'in=ii"--rniJart un'rpp,opiltewrit.oirection or ordermore particulsrly.on in the} nature bf^{Writ of Certior"ti ;;llilg ioi t-nl tu.oro.leadingto the issu' of impugnpd} ;il;;i";;'l".Airoisa/JD)p"porzora-0, .^{dt 2e 08 2olB issued bv the} Respondent^{No.eimposrng=f unishmentof sto.ppaoeof one incrementwith} cumulative effect by^{,uu'ri"ng'thu-tinal ord"r ot p^uiishmentvide proceedings} irilil[iiaozi.;^{turipio'Dodr-)oro,dt 30 0e 2010' in which punishmentof} censure^{bqside recoverv*rr'irp"rla-anaqet as.ide the same by holding it aQ} f.,[iiir"',rr"n"l^{ri"i;G;i R;t;";;;;'i;mbeinsviorative or princiBresot natural} justice

¶16

A O:,lOF2¹⁸

¶17

Petition under^{section15'1.cPC} Pl.'vl"9Jli1,'l-tTi:flIr:::t^T"i,ijit"uao 'n fie^{affidavit filed io suppJ; ;t# ;iffiih; iistr court havti'e pleiasedtq} susoend the^qperation "t^{t'nl i'p'g;Jpto""tUingt- No Al /6138/3D lPP0l2O18-6'} ii.lb.ori.zoi a bending^{of the abovewiitpetition}

:ry.f

lA NO: 1 OF 2019

Between:

The State o'--elangana, Rep by its Secretary, Finance. (i\clmrn_l) ueparrrre-tt l;ec-etariat Buildings. Secretarilt. Hyderabid

¶22

2 The Direct'r-r'f rreasury and Acco^unts, Government of reranqana, rnsurance Building, Abi,js t-tydera'baO - SOObOr.^'

¶23

3 The Joint [)rr1ctoi, O/o.Joint Dir.e61e1, pension payment Ofiice,, M.J.Road, Hyderaba.i :00 001.

¶24

...PETITIONER S/RESPONDENTS

¶25

ANP

¶26

il',:llllyi:5?E,[:ffi:Hiffi n],:i1,uu,J",,,ffi ;",16?,";:oo,, ServiQe,

¶27

I"RESPONDENTIPETITIOI!ER

¶28

PetitiOn t'nrJ':r Sectlon iSi CpC praying that in the circur.rstences stated tn jl"^_llig:r,l-l'led^{i- support^of} tre peiitioir, ihl iig,,'"i"r;";r;;;#:,ji; vacare rne |n1s11F1 1r flsr dt: : 03.12.2019 -; in l.A. No. 1 0t 2018 in v\ p No.436gi of ?918 ','^- :, SoynsEl^{for the Petiriongr;SBt.A} Ftl.pvAN SUNpER RqDDV G9qns91 for lhe Res;pon{qnto; ce FgR Ff l.laNcE PLANN|NG

¶29

Thg CoUrt Fade the foltqrlving: ORDER

wp_43681_2018 NBK, J

(

(-'

THE HON'^{BLE SRT JUSTICENAGESHBTIEEMAPAKA}

¶37

WRITPET^{ITIONNo.43681of2018}

¶38

ORDER:

¶39

The Petitioner^{is a Junior Accountantin the Offrce of Assistant} Pension^{Payment Offrcer,Panjagutta' It is submitted that while petitioner} was working^{as Senior Cashier,O/o'APPO'Secunderabad'3'd respondent} has issued^{an Article of Charge,throughCharge Memodated 19'02'2004} framing^{solechargeagainst the petitionerfor whichhe have submitted his} written statement^{of def-ense denying the charges framed against him and} requested^{to drop the charges' Subsequently'an Inquiry Officerand} presenting Ofticer^{were appointed and the Commissionerof enquireshas} submitted^{enquiry repoft and basingon the said enquiry report' a show} cause notice^{was issued and respondentno'3 has issued final orders} imposing^{punishmentof CENSUREand recovery of Rs'19'015/-'the same} was implemented^{and the amount has been fuily recovered fromthe} petitioner. It^{is furthersubmittedthat while the mattersstoodthus'} respondent^{no.3 has issued presentProceedings No'AI /6 1 3 8/JD/PPO/20I 8} - 6, dated^{29.08.2018' imposingpunishmentof stoppageof one increment} with cumulative^{eff-ect by revisingthe final order of punishment in} proceedings^{No.K/A1/8022-l4lJD|PPOI2OO1-2010'dated 30'09'2010'} wherein the^{punishment of CENSURE and recovery of amount was} already^imPosed.

¶40

Mr. A.^{BhuvanSundarReddy' learrred counsel for the petitioner} submitted^{that this Courtin W'P'No'43697of 2018 has dealt with similar} circumstances^{and vide order <lated02'04'2025allowed the same duly}

I I

wp_43681_2018 NBK, J

setting asirle rf l inpugned order dated 29.0g.2}lg In^.,.i:u of the same, sirnilar ord:r rt: I be passed even in this writ petition

¶46

This⁽ cr r i^ w.p.No.43697 of 20lg has considei:e d Rule position and passed rr ,1:t,iled order. Hence, in view of the subrniss ons made by learned coun:;e I [o. the petitioneE this writ petition is ar orved in terms of the above srirl .r'cler'. The impugned order dated 29.0g.2(rl g i; accordingly set aside. |,io :c,sts Miscellaneous petitions pendine, ij';rn.,,, shall stand closed.

¶47

¶48

T hat Rule Nisi has been made absolute as ,lbove.

¶49

witness the Hon'trre the Acting chief Justice suJoi.paur-, ", it i. rrioay ,rne / Sec: rrd t)ay Of May Two Thousand And Twenty Fi,re

¶50

SD/-T . ] IRUMALA DEVI AS ANT REGISTRAR Ersrfr i^{SEciTION OFFICER}

¶51

//TRUE COPYII

¶52

To,

¶53

(Adm i n=r), Departmenr, s\f retariat B ( ird in ss,

¶54

*:,:3?l;1,^f t,iJlfilj;

¶55

¶56

2 Ilg-911",*t,t^{,, ,nrr"r,and A^cco^unts,Government} of Telerngana, lnsurance Building Atri:s. H,rdera'baO _ SOb-bOil'

¶57

a [?3"',"#.oI:l)Bt3/o^{Joint Diiector'Pension PavmentorficeM J Road,}

¶58

4 One QC to -qUt A Bf-tUVAN $UNDEB BEDDYAdvocate ICp(,Cl

¶59

5 Two CCs tc, 1;1: t r* FTNANCE pLANNlNG,High Court for I he State of Telangan2 11;1 11,

¶60

6 Two CD C opie s KKS C, ,, \ fi-

¶61

' .. '' '.1,|ll'1 .l .rti.g*-' --..{.:-ffi
*-..*L-ir:l9.---,_

l I I I l i i I

HIGH COL'FIT

DATED:021(15t2025

ORDER

{'fii;Fl;;
/c-
,)
(,:l
i,-) 3[l li' i![ -i
..i
*

¶68

WP.No.43681 of Z01B

¶69

ALLOWING I'HE WRIT PETITION WTHOUT COSTS

¶70

{ur ----Y^-r 30(^'.'

¶71

¶72

wP_43697^2OaA - NBK,I

¶73

THE IION'B^{LE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA}

¶74

WRIT PET^{ITION No.43697 of 2018}

¶75

ORDER:

¶76

The petitioner^{is a Senior Accountantin the Office of Assistant} Pension Payment^{Off-rcer.On the allegationthat he has not followedthe} procedures prescribed^{under the A'P' Treasury Code'whilehe was a Junior} Accountantintheyear2004,resultinginfraudulentwithdrawalsof Rs.10,052/-, a^{ChargeMemo dated 19'02'2004was issued' After} departmental^{enquiry apunishmentofCensureand recoveryof} Rs.19,015/-^{was imposed by Order dated 30'09'2010' The petitionerhad} undergone the^{punishment. Thereafter,basing on the Memodated} 03.08.2017^{and also the Memodated 2l'07'2018 of respondentNo'2-} Director of^{TreasuryandAccounts, the earlierpunishment was revisedby} order dated^{29.08.2018,and the punishmentof ..Stoppageof one} increment with^{cumulative effect"was imposed. Petitionerchallenges the} same as illegal,^{arbitraryand contraryto the Rute 20 of APCS (CC&A)} Rules, 1991.

¶77

Heard Mr. A.^{BhuvanSundarReddy' learned counsel for the} petitioner; and^{learned GovemmentPleaderfor Serwices-Ill' Perusedthe} record.

¶78

Learned counsel^{for the petitioneqwhile makingsubmissionson the} lines of writ^{affidavit,contends that the petitionerhad already sufferedthe} punishment imposed^{vide Order dated 30'09'2010'and the authoritiesafter} about eight^{years sought to revisethe punishment and impose a new} punishment for^{the sameoffencefor which the petitioner had already} undergone^{the punishment earlier amounts to doublejeopardy'Furtheq}

wp-43691_2O1A NBK, i

there is ur i, I *r Cause notice to the petitioner befi,re revising the punishme,:. a r< therefore the action of the authorities .nde. order dated 29.08.2018 r,. lt :qal and arbitrary.

¶83

4' Lea.r.d ' .r':r'rment preader, basing on the countr,r aflidavit, would essentially c.r 1r nd that the Government is empowered u,dr.,r Rule 40 of APCS (CC A .\ Rrrles, I991. to revise a punishment rvitlri r l,rur vears sro motu' Lean'rctl r 'r) urther submits that the Govemment vire r\4emo dated 26-05.2015 (b1 ..uo1i,g the Memo dated 20.05.2013) orderrd .o review rhe punishments in ':sp:ct of the employees involved in fiaurluler.rt drawing of pensions. It^j., : I so contended that the authority competcnt t{) rcview the punishrnent rr rr either enhance, decrease, modify, or s(.rt aside the punishmenr air:i cly irnposed and therefoie there is no i,le1.1alit1, in the impugned or.dt:r^rateC 29.0g.201 g.

¶84

5' It is p':rri r( nr ro note that on the alregation that the,etitroner did not perlorm duc dil':rr':rce whire performing the duties of Junior r<,countant, as a result of utir It rii:udulent withdrawals to the tune of Its.1(r,052/_ have taken place, ,lriciplinary proceedings ensued, culminating in the punishruent.l ('.nsrre and recovery of Rs. 19,015/_. While sc, atter eight years, the i,rprri nerr punisrrment of stoppage of one irLcr()mcnt with cumulative r:t l'e: r u as imposed under the revisionary pov..ers of the Government r nctt. Rrrle 40.

¶85

6 At this,ir.rr l rrrt,, i[ is relevant to refer to Rule 40(1)(rv) o I the ApCS (CC&A) Rulcs. ,rlriclrreads as follows:

¶86

"any other at thority specified in this behalf by the Governrnent by a general or s[)ecial order and within such time as ma,y be prescribecl ir.t su(:h general or special order, may where a revrsion petition is preferred by the Government servant within one yelr of

¶87

¶88

wp - 43697 2018 NBK,I

¶89

the date of receipt^{by him of the order sought to be revised,and in} cases where no^{such revision petition is preferred within four} years of the date of the order^{proposedto be revised,either suo} motu or othenvise and^{after calling for the recordsof any inquiry} and examination,^{revise and order of penalty made under these} rules or under the^{rules repealedby Rule 45, afterconsultation} with Commission^{where suchconsultationis nebessary'The said} authority may exercise^{the powersuo motu within four yearsfrom} the date of issue^{of order of penalty by the competent authorityor} within one year of the^{dateof receipt of the petition either confirm} or reduce or set^{aside the order of penaltyor any other order} already issued, and^{whereit is proposedto enhance the penalty'} such authority^{may exercise the power within four years from the} date of receipt^{of the petitionand revise any order made under} Rule 45 after consultation^{with the Commissionwheresuch} consultation is^{necessary,and..."}

¶90

¶91

Further, Rule 40(1)(iv)(d)^{stipulates as follows:}

¶92

Provided further that^{no order imposingor enhancinganypenalty} shall be made^{by any revising authority unless the Government} servant concerned^{has beengiven a reasonableopportunity of} making a representation^{againstthe penalty proposedand where it} is proposed to impose^{any of the major penalties specified in Rule} I or to enhance the^{minor penalty imposedby the order soughtto} be revised to any^{of the maior penaltiesand if an inquiryunder} Rule 20 has not already^{been heldin the case,no suchpenalty} shall be imposed^{except afterinquiring in the manner laid down in} Rule 20, subject to^{the provisions of Rule 25 andexcept after} consultation^{with the Commission, where such consultation is} necessary:

¶93

Having considered^{the respective submissions and perused the} record,itistobenotedthattheinquiryproceedingsunderRule20have beenconductedbeforeimposingtheinitialpunishmentofCensureand

..:.tzii

wp 43697_2018 NBK, J

recovery ol Fr' l00521-. Rule 40(1)(iv) envisages th.t the competent authority rla<sup>':</sup> ierv the pu.ishment either suo motu ot cthr.:rwise within four years. rrLd r rt r:ight years as has been done in the ins:a:lt r)ase. Further, the punish.c, rf r;toppage of increment with cumulativr: e ffect being a major pena 1,.. ll o !,ame cannot be imposed without affor,1ing reasonable opporlunity Lrl rtal.ing a representation by the Gor,.erlrnrerrt servant as contemplatcd u r r ler Rule a0( 1)(iv)(d).

¶98

Accordir.i: r,, the writ petition is allowed, and the inJrugned order dated 29.08.2() rt i5 ;s1 aside. No costs. Miscellaneous petit.or s pe.ding, if any, shall stirn,l (.oscd.

¶99

02'd April, ?0.2 i

¶100

NAGESH BHEE}IAPAKA, J

¶101

smk

K.Jyothi v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

K.Jyothi v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Laxminandan Agarwal, Vs The State of Telangana

Pramod Kumar Agarwal Vs The State of Telangana

Bharat Kumar Agarwal Vs The State of Telangana

D. Narasimha Reddy Vs The State of Telangana

Sardar Daljeet Singh Vs The State of Telangana

B. Uma Devi Vs The State of Telangana