Allowed

B. Uma Devi v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC2 May 2025WP/43743/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A Junior Accountant challenged the revision of her punishment eight years after censure and recovery had been fully undergone, whereby stoppage of one increment was imposed. The Court held the revision time-barred under Rule 40 and imposed without opportunity of representation, set aside the order in terms of a similar writ petition.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order dated 29.08.2018 imposing stoppage of one increment with cumulative effect set aside; no costs; miscellaneous petitions closed.

B. Uma Devi 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 I\4AY} TWO THOUSAND^{AND TWENTYFIVE}

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE^{SRI JUSTICE NAGESHBHEEMAPAKA}

¶6

WRIT P ETITION^{NO:43743 0F 2018}

¶7

Between:

¶8

B. Uma Devi,^{W/o. S. JanardhanR-eddy,Aged57 years'Occ' Govt' Service'} "R7": ); 36/i,' ianuman sai Nagar colohv, Oppal, Hyderabad'

¶9

...PETITIONER

¶10

AND

¶11

'1 . The State of Telangana, Rep.by tis -Secretary,^{Finalcer(Admin-l)'} ' D.e"p;,fi;"1, seiieiariai Buiidinss, secretariat, Hvderabad

¶12

The Director^{of Treasuryand Accounts, Government of Telangana' lnsurance} Building, Abids,^{Hyderabad - 500 001'}

¶13

The Joint^{Director, o/o.JointDirector, Pension Payment office, M.J.Road,} Hyderabad - 500^001.

¶14

...RESPONDENTS

¶15

PetitionunderArticle226oftheConstitutionoflndiaprayirlgthatinthe circumstances^{statedin the affidavitfiled therewith' the High Court may be} pleased to issue an^{appropriate Writ' direction or order more particularly on in the} l"tri" ;;;";Ji"s; "t Writ of^{No.Atlotse/JD} Certioiari "atiing^tieorzofi't, for the records^{dt'2e leading 08'2018 to the issue of issued impugnedbv the} H".p""O"i't^{No.3 imposingpunishmentof stoppage of one. increment} ,with cumulative^{effect by revi#g'the final order of p-unishme. nt .videproceedings} No.l(A1/8022-^{l2lJolPPoiodl-zolo,dt 30 09 2010' in whichpunishment of} Censure beside^{recovery was imposed and set asidethe sameby holding it as} n'iir.liv il"g"i^{,iotative oi nJe, a'prrt frombeing viotativeof principles of natural} lustice

¶16

lA NO:1 oF²⁰¹⁸

¶17

PetitionunderSectionlslCPcprayingthatinthecircumstancesstatedin the affidavit^{filed in support oi tnu p"iition, irre High Courtmay be pleased- to} susoend the operation^{ot tne impugnLd proceedings No.A1/6138iJDlPPOl2O18-4'} dt. i9.08.2018^{pending of the above writ petition}

¶18

lA NO: 1 OF 2019

¶19

Between:

¶20

1 IP^Sll: I^{'elangana,Iqp,py} tir Secretary, Finance. (/\c rnir_t)

¶21

uepartne-'t l)e6r'g[3ri21 Buildings, Secretaribt, Hyderaba 1.

¶22

2 The Direcl,t^' f Treasury and Accounts, Governmenl ' of T,ll.ln( tana. Insurance Building. /.r^, r ; Frydera-bad - 500 001.

¶23

3 The Joint t,)i^- ) rtor, O/o.Joint Director, pension payment Off ice,, M.J.Road, Hyderabad !00 C01.

¶24

...PETITIONE RIJ/TI.ESPONDENTS

¶25

AND

¶26

B. Uma {)::v . .tVrr,. S. Janardhan Reddy, Aged. 57 years. Ocr . Govt. Service, R/o. 2-1!6, 1 Iianuman Sai Nagar Colohy, Eppri ff'V.t""r"r,,a

¶27

...RESPOND ENIT/PETITIONER

¶28

Petition rrn'r :' Section^'151 cpc praying that in the circLr nr sl,r nces stated in the affidavit fiie':cr i' srrrt.* vacate the inte'inr rr-de" dt: 03.12.20'18 ^o^f the_ peiitron, in r.A.No.1"of ir'" Higr' court 2018 i. nay w p L" l.r" pr.rrlJ +ii+e ort" 2018

¶29

Counsel for the P,etiriorrer: SRl. A BHUVAN SUNDER REDDY

¶30

Counsel for the Rter;r:ondents: Gp FOR FINANCE PLANNING

¶31

The Court made the I'ollowing: ORDER

wp 43743-2ora NBK,I

I I

THEHON'BLE^{SRI JUSTICE NAGESHBHE} EMA PAKA WRIT PETI^{TION No. 43743 of 2018}

¶36

ORDER:

¶37

¶38

The Petitioner^{is a JuniorAccountant in the Office of Joint Director'} Pension^{Payment Office, Tamaka'Hyderabad-It is submittedthat while} petitioner^{was working as Junior Assistant, o/o.Malakpet,Hyderabad,3,d} respondent^{has issuedan Article of Charge, throughChargeMemo dated} lg.O2.2OO4^{framingsole chargeagainst the petitioner for whichhe have} submitted^{his written statementof defensedenying the charges framed} against^{him and requested to drop the charges' Subsequently'an Inquiry} Officer^{and presenting Officer were appointed and the Commissionerof} enquires^{has submitted enquiry reportand basing on the said enquiry} report,^{a show cause notice was issuedand respondentno'3has issuedfinal} orders^{imposing punishment of CENSURE and recoveryof Rs' 15'892/-'} the same^{was implemented and the amounthas been fu[y recoveredfrom} the petitioner.^{lt is further submittedthat while the matters stood thus'} respondent^{no.3 has issued presentproceedings No'A1/61 38iJD/PPO/20 i 8} - 4, dated^{29.08'2018, imposing punishmentof stoppageof one increment} with cumulative^{effect by revising the final order of punishment in} proceedings^{No'K/A1/8022-l2lIDlPPOlzO01-2010'dated 30'09'2010.,} wherein the^{punishment of cENSURE and recovery of amount was} alreadY^imPosed'

¶39

Mr. A.^{Bhuvan Sundar Reddy'learned counselfor the petitloner} submitted^{that this Courtin W'P'No'43697of 2018 has dealt with similar} circumstances^{alrd vide order dated02'04 '2025allowedthe sameduly}

I i

wp-43743_2018 NBK, J

setting asirl I, r ir rpugned order dated 2g.0g.2}lg. ln i,ierri of the same, similar ord:, r^-r \ l,e passed et en in this writ petition

¶45

'fhis ( rr,r ir W.p.No.43697 of 201g has consider.r,rl Rule position and passed ' l" t'riied order. Hence, in view of the. s,brrrss ons made by lean'red cot,:it r tl,- the petitioner, this writ petition is al orve,d in terms of thc above sr,rl r,.der.. The impugned order dated 29.Og.2C1 g i ; accordingly set aside. l{rr :rsts Miscellaneous petitions pending, il.rin,; shall stand closcd.

¶46

To,

¶47

SDir T.:I'IRUMALA DEVI DEPUry REGIST //TRUE COPY// ,\ '...l S;E1''1'O* OFFICER

¶48

The Secret,r^- , F nance, (Admin-l), Department, Sedretar at B rildings, Secretarial. l- yde rabad.

¶49

2 The Dir€cto- r,f T'easury and A-ccounts, Government of Telanlana, lnsurance Building At i s. Flydera-bad - 500 00 j.^'

¶50

The Joirt D rr cto-, O/o.Joint Director, pension payment Of.icr,, IV.J.Road, Hyderabarl I 00 00'1.

¶51

4 One CC to i,r11 ,,t BHUVAN SUNDER REDDY Advocate [Op JC]

¶52

c Two CCr; 1,r^{( jP} t:OR FINANCE PLANNING, High Court to. tt,e State of Telangana r. []T

¶53

6 Two CD Co1: r^,s;

¶54

KKS (Along with^,l , r ccpy of the order dated 02.04.2025 in Wp N O. 43697 of 2018)

¶55

'i,

¶56

. ij. .,.-.1-a:;r!e+r!ea..' -

.:..'

a-'

HIGH COL'FIT

NBK,J

DATED:02105112025

ORDER

WP.No.4374?t of 2018

rt' t- S ,' ri- -.:-
('
t c\
3 fi tlil TlIi -l;1
'.)
:!,ll
\i' l
:/

¶65

ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT CCS'TS

¶66

<br><br>,./:<br>(r4t
Zt [i
)

¶67

¶68

wp 43697,2074 NBK, J

¶69

TTIE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESII BHEEMAPAKA WRIT PETITION No.43697 of 2018

¶70

ORDER:

¶71

The petitioner is a Senior Accountant in the Office of Assistant Pension Payment Officer. On the allegation tha.t he has not followed the procedures prescribed under the A.P. Treasury Code, while he was a Junior Accountant in the year 2004, resulting in fraudulent withdrawals of Rs.10,052i-, a Charge Memo dated 19.02.2004 was issued. After departmental enquiry a punishment of Censure and recovery of Rs.19,015/- was imposed by Order dated 30.09.2010. The petitioner had undergone the punishment. Thereafter, basing on the Memo dated 03.08.2017 and also the Memo dated 21.01 .2018 of respondent No.2Director of Treasury and Accounts, the earlier punishment was revised by Order dated 29.08.2018, and the^punishment of^"Stoppage of^one increment with cumulative effect" was imposed. Petitioner challenges the same as illegal, arbitrary and contraryto the Rule 20 of^{APCS (CC&A)} Rules. 199 l.

¶72

Heard Mr. A. Bhuvan Sundar Reddy, leamed counsel for^the petitioner; and learned Government Pleader for Services-Ill Perused the record.

¶73

Learned counsel for the petitioner, while making submissions^{on the} lines of writ affidavit, contends that the^{petitionerhad already sufferedthe} punishment imposed vide Order dated 30.09.2010, and the^{authorities after} about eight years sought to revise the^{punishment and impose a new} punishment for the same offence for which the^{petitionerhad already} undergone the punishment earlier^{amounts to doublejeopardy.Further,}

¶74

¶75

!vF,_43697_2018 N8K, I

¶76

there is no S Ir rw Cause notice to the petitioner beibre revising the punishmenl, arr th:refore the action of the authorities unCer Order dated 29.08.2018 i.; rl r.qatand arbitrary.

¶77

Learrrc,lr ov,lrnment Pleader, basing on the countei- afl idavit, would essentially r,rrr( nd that the Government is empowercd uruk:r Rule 40 of APCS (CC &. ,t ) Rrrles, 1991 , to revise a punishment rvithi I fitur years .sro motu. Leanc,.l t .P urther submits that the Government ,.,rle Memo dated 26.05.2015 (b1 . uoting the Memo dated 20.05.2013) order,:d to review the punishments in^.:spect of the employees involved in tiaurlu lent drawing of pensions. It 's z'so contended that the authority compet()rt 1o review the punishment n I ) cither enhance, decrease, modify, r,r s,:t aside the punishment i,irt"iLrly imposed and therefore there is no ittergality in the impugned o-rl,: r are d 29.08.2018.

¶78

It is pertir r :nt to note that on the allegation that the D(.tit oner did not perform due rJilirenle while performing the duties of ,Iunir rr .A..:countant, as a result of rvhi:" fr;rudulent withdrawals to the tune of 11s.1rJ.052/- have taken plact:. r' sctrlinary proceedings ensued, culrrirratrng in the punishment o.',-,:,sLrre and recovery of Rs. 19,015/-. While sr,, after eight years, the tnrpL lreC punishment of stoppage of one i-rc-..ement with cumulative el't. ;. v,.as imposed under the revisionary 1lo,,vers of the Government un,lt,r Rule 40.

¶79

At thi:i .r u: r ture, it is relevant to refer to Rule 40( I )( i.) , rf the ApCS (CC&A) Rules, ri hic[r reads as follows:

¶80

"any other authcrity specified in this behalf by the Government by a general or special order and within such time as may be prescribed irr such general or special order, may where a rerrision petitior, is; r refer.red by the Government servant within onr: year of

¶81

¶82

wP_43697 2078 NSK, J

¶83

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 proposed to be revised, either suo motu or otherwise and after calling for the records of any inquiry and examination, revise and order of penalty made under these rules or under the rules repealed by Rule 45, after consultation with Commission where such consultation is neiessary. The said authority may exercise the power suo motu within four years from the date of issue of order of penalty by the competent authority or within one year of the date of receipt of the petition either confirm or reduce or set aside the order of penalty or any other order already issued, and where it is proposed to enhance the penalty, such authority may exercise the power within four years from the date of receipt of the petition and revise any order made under Rule 45 after consultation with the Commission where such consultation is necessary and..."

¶84

7 .

¶85

Further, Rule 40( l)(iv)(d) stipulates as follows:

¶86

Provided further that no order imposing or enhancing any penalty shall be made by any revising authority unless the Government servant concerned has been given a reasonable opportunity of making a representation against the penalty proposed and where it is proposed to impose any of the major penalties specified in Rule 9 or to enhance the minor penalty imposed by the order sought to be revised to any of the major penalties and if an inquiry under Rule 20 has not already been held in the case, no such penalty shall be imposed except after inquiring in the manner laid down in Rule 20, subject to the provisions of Rule 25 and except after consultation with the Commission, where such consultation is necessary:

¶87

Having considered the respective submissions and perused the record, it is to be noted that the inquiry proceedings under Rule 20 have been conducted before imposing the initial punishment of Censure and

¶88

¶89

wp 43697_2018 N8K, J

¶90

recovery ol' it:. t0.152l-. Rule a0(1)(iv) envisages that th: competent authority m1;^'('/ e rr,/ the punishment either suo motu or orherwise within four years, rLnrl r ri cight years as has been done in the inslant^()ase. Furthet the punishnrcrl^,)r 'itoppage of increment with cumulatii,t e:-fect being a major penaltr, t'e same cannot be imposed without afforrling reasonable opportunity ,rf^r laking a representation by the Coven-utert seruant as contemplated u r^t ler Rule a0(l)(iv)(d).

¶91

Acco:'drr11 r,, the writ petition is allowed, and the imp,ugned order dated 29.08 2()^I rs set aside. No costs. Miscellaneous petitrorrs pending, if any, shall stirr,d,: ost:d.

¶92

NAGESH BTT EEI,IAPAKA, J

¶93

02'd April, 2025

¶94

smk

B. Uma Devi v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

B. Uma Devi 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

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

K.Jyothi Vs The State of Telangana