Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 1054 (AP)

I. S. Subba Rao v. State of Andhra Pradesh

2023-07-12

TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO

body2023
ORDER : 1. The present Writ Petition is filed seeking a direction to the respondents to release the petitioner’s service pension from 01.10.2019 and retirement benefits of gratuity and commutation amount in pursuance of G.O.Rt.No.1097, Finance and Planning (FE. Pen.I) Department, dated 22.06.2000 and to award interest @ 18% per annum on all retiremental and consequential benefits relying on the Judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in “J.N. Goel and others v. Union of India and Others, 1997 (2) SCC 440 and “L. Mehrotra and others v. State of U.P. and others, 2002 SCC (L&S) 278. 2. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and Learned Government Pleader for Municipal Administration and Urban Development. 3. The Pleadings in the affidavit filed in support of Writ Petition, in circumlocutory are that the petitioner was appointed in the year 1978 as NMR in the then Town Planning Trust, later he was appointed as typist on 21.08.1986, later he was promoted as Senior Assistant and Administrative Officer under the direct control of the Divisional Forest Officer as per practice in vogue. Eventually, he was retired from the service on 30.09.2019 on attaining the age of superannuation of 60 years. 4. It is further contended that a three Member Committee was constituted to enquire into the matter for the irregularities committed by the petitioner along with others and the committee has recommended to initiate the disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner and three others. Basing upon the recommendations of the Committee, a notice was issued to the petitioner herein vide memo in RC No.79/2018/A1 dated 02.07.2019 and the petitioner herein was supplied with documents on 01.10.2019 and directed the petitioner herein to submit his explanation to the supra stated memo. Accordingly, the petitioner herein has submitted his explanation to the memo. 5. Subsequently, the respondents herein have framed charges against all the charged officers vide proceedings in RC No.79/2018/A1(e-Office No.14038/25/2019) dated 03.10.2020 and the same was served on the Writ petitioner under Rule 24 of A.P. Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1991. Due to the charges framed against the petitioner herein, the respondents herein have retained the amount of Rs.2,22,112/-, which is encashment of earned leave and pension. 6. Due to the charges framed against the petitioner herein, the respondents herein have retained the amount of Rs.2,22,112/-, which is encashment of earned leave and pension. 6. In the aforesaid factual backdrop of the case, the present Writ Petition came to be filed on the ground that the petitioner herein have not committed any irregularity and if the respondents have found any irregularity, that is not by the petitioner and three other charged officers and the committee constituted by the respondents is not a valid committee and they are not versed with the contract work and ought not have been believed on such committee report for initiation of disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner herein and it is also contended that there are no disciplinary proceedings pending against the petitioner herein as on the date of retirement, therefore, the respondents ought not to have been retained the leave encashment amount and pension under Section 9 of the Andhra Pradesh Revised Pension Rules, 1980 and it is also contended that under sub-rule (2)(b) (i) of Rule 9 of A.P. Revised Pension Rules, 1980, no sanction is required from Government to take action against retired employee, in view of the instructions laid down under G.O.Ms.No.1097, Finance and Planning Department dated 22.06.2000 which is an amendment to that Rule 9 of A.P. Revised Pension Rules. And pleaded to direct the respondents to release the retained amount and pension. 7. And it is appears that from the affidavit that the Metropolitan Commissioner, VMRDA has sanctioned provisional pension @ 75% vide proceeding No.14038/25/2019/ Admin-VMRDA dated 24.02.2000 under Rule 52 of A.P. Revised pension rules 1970. 8. Learned counsel for the respondents have denied all the averments made in the affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition inter alia it is specifically contended that the petitioner has committed irregularities and the three member committee submitted a preliminary report found fault with petitioner about the financial irregularities committed by the petitioner, and under sub-rule 2(b) of A.P. Revised Pension Rules, 1980, as such an action to take the first step in the process was initiated within four years from the date of incident/event by issuing disciplinary proceedings. Hence prayed to dismiss the Writ Petition. 9. Hence prayed to dismiss the Writ Petition. 9. In order to consider the rival contention raised /advanced by the counsels it would be appropriate and apposite to refer the relevant rule 9 of A.P. Revised Pension Rules, 1980, which is extracted hereunder: (1) Not necessary. (2)(a) The departmental proceedings referred to in sub-rule (1), if instituted while the Government servant was in service whether before his retirement or during his re-employment, shall, after the final retirement of the Government servant, be deemed to be proceedings under this rule and shall be continued and concluded by the authority by which they were commenced in the same manner as if the Government servant had continued in service: Provided that where the departmental proceedings are instituted by an authority subordinate to the State Government, that authority shall submit a report recording its findings to the State Government. (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 Government; (ii) shall not be in respect of any event which took place more than four years before such institution; and (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 his service. (3) Not necessary. (4) In the case of a Government servant who has retired on attaining the age of superannuation or otherwise and against whom any departmental or judicial proceedings are instituted or where departmental proceedings are continued under sub-rule (2), a provisional pension as provided in Rule 52 shall be sanctioned. 10. As per the said Rule, under sub-rule 2(b)(ii) Disciplinary Proceedings can initiate within four years from the date of event /incident. A reading of the above said provision now that the question arises for consideration is that whether the authorities can initiate disciplinary proceedings as contemplated under the above said provision and whether government is vested with the power to take action against the retired employee as per G.O.Ms.No.1097 dated 22.06.2000. 11. As per the referred rule that no lawful proceedings can be launched after the time by the statutory rule. 11. As per the referred rule that no lawful proceedings can be launched after the time by the statutory rule. The rule requires that the departmental proceedings must be initiated before the lapse of four years from the date of event that has taken place. Any departmental proceedings after the period of limitation shall be patently illegal. 12. Admittedly, the irregularities have taken place from January, 2018 to March, 2018 and the committee was constituted and it was directed to conduct preliminary enquiry and to submit a report on or before 11.06.2018 and the Committee has submitted its report on 02.07.2018 alluding that to initiate Disciplinary Action against all the charged officers by following due procedure as laid down under Rule 20 of the Andhra Pradesh Revised Pension Rules, 1980. Accordingly, as per rule (2) (b) (ii) of AP Revised Pension rules, sanction has been accorded for initiation of disciplinary action against the petitioner vide proceedings Rc.No.79/2018/A1-1, dated 03.10.2021. Further, vide proceedings Rc.No.79/2018/A1-3, Dated 03.10.2021 common disciplinary proceedings were initiated against all the four charged officers under Rule 24 of APCS (CCA) Rules 1991 and also framed Articles of Charge against all the four charged officers vide proceedings No.79/2018/A1-4 to 7, dated 03.10.2021, directing the charged officers to submit their written statement of defence within 10 days from the date of receipt of the Articles of Charge. 13. On enunciating above contention raised by both the counsel for the petitioner and for the respondents whether the respondents are right in retaining the amount of Rs.2,22,112/- of the earned leave and whether the petitioner herein entitled for the relief as prayed in the Writ Petition and to direct the respondents to pay the retained amount with interest. 14. Admittedly, there are no charges are pending as on the date of retirement and as per sub-rule (2)(b)(ii), Departmental Proceedings can initiate against the retired Government employee in respect of any incident/ event which took place before four years from the charge sheet issued to the charged officer. 15. In the present case irregularities have taken place from January, 2018 to March, 2018 and the Committee has submitted its report on 02.07.2018 and a charge sheet was issued to the petitioner on 03.10.2021 which is admittedly within limitation as prescribed in the Rule. 16. 15. In the present case irregularities have taken place from January, 2018 to March, 2018 and the Committee has submitted its report on 02.07.2018 and a charge sheet was issued to the petitioner on 03.10.2021 which is admittedly within limitation as prescribed in the Rule. 16. As contemplated under sub-rule (2)(b)(i) of A.P. Revised Pension Rules, 1980, if the departmental proceedings are not instituted while the Government servant was in service, whether before his retirement or during his employment then shall not be instituted save with the sanction of the government. 17. In the present case no disciplinary proceedings were initiated while Government servant was in service i.e., as prior to his retirement date 30.09.2019 necessarily sanction of Government is essential to initiate disciplinary proceedings under the aforesaid clause. As held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in plethora of judgments serving of Charge Sheet amounts to institution of disciplinary proceedings. No charge sheet was served prior to superannuation of petitioner herein. 18. As per the G.O.Ms.No.1097 dated 20.06.2000 according to the existing rules the following are the terminal benefits to be sanctioned to a retired employee: 1. Family Benefit Fund 2. Andhra Pradesh Group Insurance Amount 3. General Provident Fund amount 4. Andhra Pradesh Government Life Insurance amount 5. Encashment of Earned Leave 6. Retirement Gratuity 7. Pension/Provisional Pension 8. Commuted Value of Pension The following amounts shall be paid to the retired employee since no recoveries can be made from the following amount: 1. Family Benefit Fund 2. Andhra Pradesh Group insurance Scheme 3. General Provident Fund 4. Andhra Pradesh Government Life Insurance As per the G.O.Ms.No.1097, the respondents can retain the encashment of earned leave. 19. And under para 5 of G.O.Ms.No.1097 if any irregularities of a retired employee is noticed after his retirement and no departmental proceedings can be instituted under sub-rule (2)(b) of Rule 9 of A.P. Revised Pension Rules, 1980, then the department can initiate Criminal Action against the retired officer or action under the Andhra Pradesh Revenue Recovery Act 1964 to recover the loss if any caused to the Government by him. 20. On careful reading of the aforesaid clause in the G.O., if no departmental proceedings can be instituted under sub-rule (2)(b) of Rule 9 then the Government initiate criminal action or can invoke Revenue Recovery Act for the loss any caused to the Government. 21. 20. On careful reading of the aforesaid clause in the G.O., if no departmental proceedings can be instituted under sub-rule (2)(b) of Rule 9 then the Government initiate criminal action or can invoke Revenue Recovery Act for the loss any caused to the Government. 21. In the present case the Government has instituted departmental proceedings under sub-rule (2)(b)(ii) of Rule 9 of A.P. Revised Pension Rules in time, as discussed by this Court supra. Even no departmental proceedings were instituted still the Government can initiate criminal proceedings or can invoke Revenue Recovery Act for the loss caused to the Government, indeed the said contention raised by the counsel for the petitioner goes against to the petitioner. 22. As contested by the respondents herein, the Government can initiate or institute disciplinary proceedings after the retirement but it must be within four years from the date of incident/event. Admittedly, the Charge sheet was served on the petitioner herein as stipulated in sub-rule (2)(b) of rule 9 of A.P. Revised Pension Rules, 1980. 23. Whether the petitioner has committed any irregularity or not, it depends upon the finding which has to be arrived by inquiring authority. And as per the G.O.Ms.No.1097 dated 22.06.2000, the Government can retain the encashment of earned leave and can initiate disciplinary proceeding within four years from the date of incident/ event. 24. Learned counsel for the Petitioner relied on the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in J.N. Goel and others v. Union of India and Others (supra), the judgment is not relevant to the present case and the judgment relates to promotion of the employees therein. Hence, the judgment is not applicable to the present case. The other judgment relied by the Petitioner herein in L. Mehrotra and others v. State of U.P. and others (supra) and the judgment pertains to payment of interest for the delayed payment of retiremental benefits that is not an issue in the present case. Hence, both the judgments are not applicable to present facts of the case. 25. There is no clarity whether the petitioner was receiving 75% pension as per Rule 52 of the Andhra Pradesh Revised Pension Rules, 1980. Hence, both the judgments are not applicable to present facts of the case. 25. There is no clarity whether the petitioner was receiving 75% pension as per Rule 52 of the Andhra Pradesh Revised Pension Rules, 1980. As the said authorities have sanctioned the said pension vide proceedings RC No.14038/25/2019-ADMIN-VMRDA, dated 24.02.2020 subject to finalization of the disciplinary proceedings, if the respondents have not released the said pension as per the proceedings supra then they are hereby directed to release provisional pension as contemplated under Rule 52 of the A.P. Revised Pension Rules from the date of his retirement. 26. A conspectus reading of Rule 9 of A.P. Revised Pension Rules 1980 with G.O.Ms.No.1097, which expounds that the respondents can retain the encashment of earned leave for the loss caused to the Government pending disciplinary proceedings and can initiate disciplinary proceedings after the retirement of the government employee, however, subject to the initiation of proceeding prior to the four years from the date of incident/event. 27. Resultantly, the Writ Petition stands dismissed as this court does not found any irregularities committed by the respondents in retaining the encashment of earned leave. 28. However, the respondents are hereby directed to conclude the disciplinary proceedings, as expeditiously as possible, not later than four months from the date of receipt of the order and if it is found that the petitioner has not committed any irregularities, the respondents are directed to release the said amount within a period of 3 months from the date of conclusion of the disciplinary proceedings with interest@ 6% per annum from the date of retirement till the date of the payment. 29. As a sequel, interlocutory applications, if any pending in this Writ Petition shall stand closed.