Research › Search › Judgment

Telangana High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 398 (TS)

G. T. R. Krishna Rao v. State of Telangana

2023-06-05

SUREPALLI NANDA

body2023
ORDER : Heard the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner and learned Government Pleader for Forests. 2. This Writ Petition is filed to issue a Writ of Mandamus, in imposing the punishment of 15% cut in pension permanently against the Petitioner vide G.O.Ms.No.12 EFS&T (For.III) Department dated 12.09.2014 and rejection of his mercy petition vide Govt. Memo No.16/For.III/ A1.1/2017 dated 29.05.2017 respectively as illegal, unjust and contrary to the mandatory provisions of the Rule 21 (3) of the A.P.C.S (CC & Rules) and consequently hold that the petitioner is entitled for all pensionary benefits with an interest of 9% per annum from the date of retirement to till the date of actual payment. 3. The case of the Petitioner, in brief, is as follows: a) Petitioner had been working as Manager, Wild Life Management Circle, Hyderabad and was issued with a Charge Memo vide Rc.No.14858/2000-A2 dated 23.06.2000 by the 2nd respondent, alleging that there is improper supervision of the office work and failure to take prompt action in the file No.576/96/S2 for encashment of Bank Guarantee worth Rs.6,70,000/-. b) The 2nd respondent is appointed as Conservator of Forests, Khammam Circle, Khammam as Enquiry Officer vide proceedings Ref.No.14858/2000/K2 dated 25.07.2000. Enquiry officer submitted report holding that the charges levelled against the petitioner are proved without following the due process under rule 20 and the Government vide G.O.Ms.No.66 dated 28.05.2008 imposed the punishment of 15% cut in pension permanently besides recovery of Rs.2,25,334/-. c) Petitioner had challenged the same vide O.A. No. 5355 of 2008 before the A.P. Administrative Tribunal and the A.P. Administrative Tribunal set aside the impugned G.O.Ms.No.66 E.F.S&T dated 28.05.2008. d) Pursuant to the orders of A.P. Administrative Tribunal, the Enquiry Officer had submitted the enquiry report vide Rc.No.6020/1997-M1 dated 10.11.2011 and held that the charges against the petitioner are not proved. e) Petitioner had filed O.A. No. 4390 of 2012, to quash the charge Memo Issued vide Ref.No.14858/2000-A2 dated 23.06.2000for abnormal delay in concluding the disciplinary proceedings. The said O.A. was disposed on 25.06.2011 directing to pass orders in enquiry report. f) Without assigning any reasons, the government has issued Show Cause Notice and also disagreed with the findings of the Enquiry Officer. The said O.A. was disposed on 25.06.2011 directing to pass orders in enquiry report. f) Without assigning any reasons, the government has issued Show Cause Notice and also disagreed with the findings of the Enquiry Officer. g) In the instant case, the Government has issued show cause notice on 24.05.2013, not only disagreeing with the findings of the Enquiry Officer but also imposed the punishment under Rule 9(1) of A.P. Revised Pension Rules, 1980, which is not permissible in the rule of law. By not assigning any reasons while disagreeing to the findings of the enquiry officer report by the Government is in violation of Rule 21 (2) and (3) of A.P.C.S (CC&A) Rules, 1991. i) Petitioner had preferred an mercy petition to the Government on 21.12.2016 requesting the Government to consider the case and review the punishment imposed against the petitioner and release entire pensionary benefits but the same had been rejected by the Government. Hence the Writ Petition. 4. The counter affidavit filed by the Respondents, in brief, is as follows: a) Against the charges mentioned in the Charge sheet, the petitioner had submitted the explanation dated 07.09.2000. The Enquiry by the Enquiry Officer concluded that the charges made against the petitioner are proved and the same were communicated to the petitioner. b) Petitioner submitted defense statement on 22.10.2001. The report had further been submitted to the Government on 18.07.2002 requesting to issue necessary orders. c) The Government then issued show cause notice on 19.12.2007 indicating a punishment of 15% cut in pension permanently under Rule 9 of AP Revised Pension Rules, 1980 and the petitioner submitted the defense statement on 22.01.2008 against the show cause notice. d) The Government after examining, issued orders imposing a penalty of 15% cut in pension permanently beside recovery and against the same the petitioner had filed O.A. No.5355 of 2008 and the Tribunal vide its order allowed the O.A but had given liberty to proceed against the petitioner following due process of law. e) Government disagreed with the 2nd report of the Enquiry Officer for the reason that Charged Officer had failed to renew the Bank Guarantee within the time of expiry and have issued the punishment of 15% cut in pension permanently. e) Government disagreed with the 2nd report of the Enquiry Officer for the reason that Charged Officer had failed to renew the Bank Guarantee within the time of expiry and have issued the punishment of 15% cut in pension permanently. f) Disagreement factors were already communicated to the petitioner as per rule 21(2) of CCA and it was also communicated that, if the explanation is not satisfactory, a penalty would be imposed and only after due examination, not satisfied with the explanation of the petitioner, Government had imposed the penalty against the petitioner. g) Due to improper action of the petitioner, the bank had refused to honour the payment of the amount, which had resulted in financial loss to the Government. h) As for the Mercy petition submitted by the petitioner, there is no provision in A.P. Civil Services (CCA) Rules, 1991 and the government after examining the issue had rejected the Mercy Petition and the same had been communicated to the petitioner vide PCCF’s Lr.No.14858/2000/Vig.3, dated 08.06.2017 and the same had been acknowledged by the petitioner. Hence there are no merits in the case and the same is liable to be dismissed. 5. PERUSED THE RECORD : I) The order impugned passed against the Petitioner vide G.O.Ms.No.12, dated 12.09.2014 of the 1st Respondent, in particular, Paras 7 to 10 read as under: “7. Government, after careful examination of the matter with reference to the enquiry officer's report and report of the Prl. Chief Conservator of Forests and material made available, have observed that the findings of Inquiry Authority are not correct as the Charged Officer failed in getting the Bank Guarantee renewed within the time of expiry. Hence, It is provisionally decided to impose a penalty of 15% cut in pension permanently against the Accused Officer, Sri GTR Krishna Rao, Manager (Retd), Khammam Division, under Rule-9 of A.P. Revised Pension Rules, 1980. 8. Accordingly, Show Cause Notice was issued to the Charged Officer Sri GTR Krishna Rao, Manager (Retd) vide reference 8thread above. The Charged Officer has submitted his explanation through reference 9th read above. The concurrence of the A.P. Public Service Commission has been obtained vide reference 12th read above. 9. 8. Accordingly, Show Cause Notice was issued to the Charged Officer Sri GTR Krishna Rao, Manager (Retd) vide reference 8thread above. The Charged Officer has submitted his explanation through reference 9th read above. The concurrence of the A.P. Public Service Commission has been obtained vide reference 12th read above. 9. Government, after careful examination of the matter have decided to confirm the provisional decision and hereby order to Impose a penalty of 15% cut in pension permanently against Sri GTR Krishna Rao, Manager (Retd), under Rule 9 of A.P. Revised Pension Rules, 1980. 10. The Prl. Chief Conservator of Forests, Telangana, Hyderabad is requested to take action accordingly.” II) Rule 21 (2) (3) of A.P.C.S (C.C. & A) Rules, 1991 reads as under: “21. Review of orders of suspension of Government Servants -Existing orders reiterated -Further instructions - Issued. (2) After careful consideration, Government direct that, all concerned authorities to strictly implement the policy decision enunciated in the G.O.s read above. It is the responsibility of the competent authority to review each and every case of suspension as per the orders in-force and consider the reinstatement of the employees. The objective is to complete the disciplinary cases against the employees as expeditiously as possible and to punish the guilty. This is the specific policy of the Government for efficient and smooth functioning of the administration. (3) Accordingly, Government, hereby, direct that the employees who are under suspension for a period exceeding two years shall be reinstated pending finalization of the disciplinary cases/criminal cases against them. This is the specific policy of the Government for efficient and smooth functioning of the administration. (3) Accordingly, Government, hereby, direct that the employees who are under suspension for a period exceeding two years shall be reinstated pending finalization of the disciplinary cases/criminal cases against them. However, in exceptional cases, for example, where the charged Officers are not cooperating for completion of investigation / inquiry or when the inquiry / investigation could not be completed due to pendency of litigation, a Committee headed by the Secretary of the administrative Department, Head of the Department concerned and an Official from the Anti Corruption Bureau (where the cases are emanated from Anti Corruption Bureau investigation), shall review the orders of suspension against the employees who are continued under suspension well before completion of two years of suspension and take a decision to continue such employees under suspension beyond two years, duly recording the reasons for such a decision.” III) Statement of findings of the enquiry officer in the disciplinary case against Sri G.T.R. Krishna Rao, Manager, former Superintendent of Khammam Division, pertaining to analysis of evidence and findings of enquiry officer, issued vide Rc.No.6020/1997-M1 dated 10.11.2015 which reads as under: “D. Analysis of Evidence : It is a case, wherein due to in action in not encashment of the Bank Guarantees worth Rs. 6,70,000/- on or before 30.06.1997 the Government has sustained loss. The Bank authorities in their letter dt. 19.06.1997 informed the Divisional Forest Officer, Khammam that it was not possible to renew the Bank Guarantees upto 30.09.1997, since no particulars were received from the purchaser. In this context it is to be kept in mind that the need to encash the Bank Guarantee produced by the purchaser as Security Deposit will arise only when an instalment is over due from the purchaser and when he failed to clear the dues even after issue of notices.” “In this particular case, the instalment was due on 31.12.1996 but the government have granted extension of time upto 30.06.1997 which was further extended till 30.09.1997 Vide G.M.No. 6717/For 111/97-1; dt. 30.06.1997 Thus even though the installment was over due, the purchaser had time to pay it till 9/1997 with penal interest etc.. When such is the case, calling the Bank to fulfill their commitment by encashing the Bank Guarantee is not possible till that date. 30.06.1997 Thus even though the installment was over due, the purchaser had time to pay it till 9/1997 with penal interest etc.. When such is the case, calling the Bank to fulfill their commitment by encashing the Bank Guarantee is not possible till that date. However as the validity of the Bank Guarantee was only upto 30.06. 1997, as a precautionary measure, the office have addressed the Bank in 6/1997 itself. Actually, this action of the staff testifies their alertness. It was open for the purchaser to clear the dues for July 1997 to September 1997. But, he failed to utilize the opportunity provided by the Government and defaulted. The concerned staff might have honestly felt that the purchaser would pay the dues with in the first extended time 30.06.1997, and when there was no response till 14.06.1997, sincerely tried to protect the interest of the Government by addressing the Bank. Therefore there is no reason to doubt their intentions. The file with note was putup to the Divisional Forest Officer through Superintendent on 14.06.1997 and a letter was issued to the Bank on 14.06.1997 to renew the Bank Guarantee upto 30.09.1997 Le till the expiry of extended period. In turn the Bank informed vide their letter dt. 19.07.1997 that it was not possible to renew the Bank Guarantee. This letter was received on 25.06.2007 in Division Office, which was seen by the Charged Officer as well as the then Divisional Forest Officer, Khammam as the time left was very short, immediate action should have been taken The file with note was submitted for the orders of the Divisional Forest Officer, Khammam on 27.06.1997 From that day to 01.07.1997, the file moved from the concerned clerk to Officer Ultimately the letter to Bank for the amount was issued only on 01.07.1997 Either the concerned clerk or the Superintendent (Charged Officer), should have taken the file to the Divisional Forest Officer personally and got the letter approved in time. They failed to do so which resulted in this unfortunate incident. There seem to be some communication gap between the staff themselves and the Officer The concerned Assistant and the Superintendent, though took action on 14.06.1997, as a precautionary measure failed to encash the Bank Guarantee. To that extent both the Section Assistant and the Superintendent are responsible. They failed to do so which resulted in this unfortunate incident. There seem to be some communication gap between the staff themselves and the Officer The concerned Assistant and the Superintendent, though took action on 14.06.1997, as a precautionary measure failed to encash the Bank Guarantee. To that extent both the Section Assistant and the Superintendent are responsible. However, there seems to be no malafide intention on their part and it is clear they acted only in good faith. I would like to conclude that the repeated extensions granted by the Government for payment of due amounts and not insisting that the purchasers have to validate the Bank Guarantees produced by them accordingly is the root cause for this type of mishap.” IV) The counter affidavit filed by Respondents No.1 to 2 on behalf of all the official Respondents, in particular para 8 reads as under: “Para 8. In reply to Para No.8 of the affidavit it is submitted that findings were submitted to the Government vide PCCF Rc.No.14858/2000/K-II/1, dt.24.11.2011 and 15-9-2012 for issue of final orders in the disciplinary case of the petitioner. The Government after examining the report of the Prl. Chief Conservator of Forests with reference to the connected case records, have issued a show cause notice by disagreeing with the findings of the Inquiry Officer on the factors that the Charged Officer did fail in getting Bank Guarantee renewed within the time of expiry and it has resulted in loss to Government to a tune of Rs. 6,70,000/-directing the petitioner to show cause as to why suitable penalty cannot be imposed against him as per Rule 9(1) of A.P. Revised Pension Rules, 1980 and requested to submit defense statement if any within (15) days from the date of receipt of the memo, failing which further action will be taken on the material available vide G.M.No.6600/For.IV/ A2/2002-44, dated 24.05.2013. The same was communicated to the petitioner vide PCCF's Endt. No.14858/2000/K3(1), dt. 31-5-2013. The same was acknowledged by him on 07-6-2013. Accordingly, the petitioner submitted the reply to the Show-Cause-Notice vide his representation dated 17-6-2013. On which the remarks along with reply of the Petitioner were submitted to the Government vide PCCF's Ref. No. 14858/2000/K3, dated 21-6-2013. The same was communicated to the petitioner vide PCCF's Endt. No.14858/2000/K3(1), dt. 31-5-2013. The same was acknowledged by him on 07-6-2013. Accordingly, the petitioner submitted the reply to the Show-Cause-Notice vide his representation dated 17-6-2013. On which the remarks along with reply of the Petitioner were submitted to the Government vide PCCF's Ref. No. 14858/2000/K3, dated 21-6-2013. The Government after examining the case of the petitioner with reference to the connected records and findings of the Inquiry Officer have issued orders imposing the penalty of 15% cut in pension permanently against the Petitioner, under Rule 9 of A.P.Revised Pension Rules, 1980 vide G.O.Ms.No.12, EFS&T (For.III) Dept., dated 12-9-2014.” DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION : 6. A bare perusal of para 8 of the order impugned G.O.Ms.No.12, dated 12.09.2014 of the 1st Respondent and also para 8 of the counter affidavit filed by Respondents No.1 and 2, indicates that the show cause notice was issued to the Petitioner, calling upon the Petitioner to submit the explanation as to why suitable penalty cannot be imposed against the Petitioner as per Rule 9(1) of A.P. Revised Pension Rules, 1980 and the Petitioner was requested to submit his explanation within 15 days from the date of receipt of the said memo and the Petitioner had submitted representation/explanation dt. 17.06.2013 to the said show cause notice, but however, the order impugned does not indicate any discussion or consideration of the explanation dt. 17.06.2013 submitted by the Petitioner nor the order impugned gives any reasons in rejecting Petitioner’s request to drop the disciplinary proceedings against the Petitioner taking into consideration the Petitioner’s explanation or the clear findings of the enquiry officer in his enquiry report submitted vide Rc.No.6020/1997-M1, dt. 10.11.2011 to the 2nd Respondent herein, in favour of the Petitioner herein holding that there is no concrete evidence to establish the charges framed against the Petitioner and hence the charge is not proved. 7. This Court opines that when an authority makes an order in exercise of a quasi-judiciary function or an order which has the effect of affecting civil rights of the person and which action is liable to be reviewed by constitutional courts as provided under the constitution, it must record its reasons in support of the order it makes. 8. 7. This Court opines that when an authority makes an order in exercise of a quasi-judiciary function or an order which has the effect of affecting civil rights of the person and which action is liable to be reviewed by constitutional courts as provided under the constitution, it must record its reasons in support of the order it makes. 8. A bare perusal of the Memo No.16/For.III/A1/2017, dated 29.05.2017 of the 1st Respondent herein indicates that the Mercy Petition of the Petitioner seeking restoration of full pension to the Petitioner had been rejected unilaterally on the ground that the Petitioner had retired from service and there is no provision of mercy petition under CCA Rules 1991. 9. It is well settled position in law by reason of the judgments of the Supreme Court in State of M.P. Vs. Narsingh Das reported in AIR 1969 SC 115, State of Gujarat Vs. Patel Raghav Nath reported in AIR 1964 SC 1297, TravncoreRayaons Ltd., Vs. Union of India, reported in 1978 ELT (378) (SC) that if no reasons are given in the order, the order will be regarded as void. 10. In Black's Law Dictionary, 5th Edition, 'reason' has been defined as a "faculty of the mind by which it distinguishes truth from falsehood, good from evil, and which enables the possessor to deduce inferences from facts or from propositions. 'Reason' means the faculty of rational thought rather than some abstract relationship between propositions and by this faculty, it is meant the capacity to make correct inferences from propositions, to size up facts for which they are and what they imply, and to identify the best means to some end, and, in general, to distinguish what we should believe from what we merely do believe. 11. In S.N. Mukherjee v. Union of India, AIR 1990 SC 1984 , the Apex Court held that keeping in view the expanding horizon of the principles of natural justice, the requirement to record reasons can be regarded as one of the principles of natural justice which governs exercise of power by administrative authorities. Except in cases where the requirement has been dispensed with expressly or by necessary implication, an administrative authority is required to record reasons for its decision. 12. Except in cases where the requirement has been dispensed with expressly or by necessary implication, an administrative authority is required to record reasons for its decision. 12. In Raj Kishore Jha v. State of Bihar, JT 2003 (Supp.II) SC 354, the apex Court has held that "reason" is the heart beat of every conclusion and without the same it becomes lifeless. The same view has also been taken in State of Orissa v. DhaniramLuhar, JT (2004) 2 SC 172. 13. In Menaka Gandhi v. Union of India, AIR 1978 SC 597 , the apex Court held as follows: "The reasons, if disclosed, being open to judicial scrutiny for ascertaining their nexus with the order, the refusal to disclose the reasons would equally be open to the scrutiny of the Court; or else, the wholesome power of a dispassionate judicial examination of executive orders could with impunity be set at naught by an obdurate determination to suppress the reasons" 14. The Apex Court in the judgment reported in (1978) 1 SCC 405 in “Mohinder Singh Gill and another v. The Chief Election Commissioner, New Delhi and others” at para 8 observed as under: “8. The second equally relevant matter is that when a statutory functionary makes an order based on certain grounds, its validity must be judged by the reasons so mentioned and cannot be supplemented by fresh reasons in the shape of affidavit or otherwise. Otherwise, an order bad in the beginning may, by the time it comes to Court on account of a challenge, get validated by additional grounds later brought out. We may here draw attention to the observations of Bose, J. In Gordhandas Bhanji: Public orders, publicly made, in exercise of a statutory authority cannot be construed in the light of explanations subsequently given by the officer making the order of what he meant, or of what was in his mind, or what he intended to do. Public orders made by public authorities are meant to have public effect and are intended to affect the actings and conduct of those to whom they are addressed and must be construed objectively with reference to the language used in the order itself. “Orders are not like old wine becoming better as they grow older.” 15. Public orders made by public authorities are meant to have public effect and are intended to affect the actings and conduct of those to whom they are addressed and must be construed objectively with reference to the language used in the order itself. “Orders are not like old wine becoming better as they grow older.” 15. In Padfield v Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, (1968) 1 All ER 694 (HL), it has been held a failure to give reasons may permit the Court to infer that the decision was reached by reasons of an error in law. 16. This Court opines that recording of reason ensures that justice is not only done but is also be seen to be done. Recording of reasons also operates as a legitimate restraint on any possible arbitrary exercise of judicial or quasi-judicial or administrative power by any authority and as such is a facilitator of Rule of Law. 17. This Court is of the firm opinion that the reasons and circumstances for passing order impugned is unexplained in the impugned Memo of the 1st Respondent in G.O.Ms.No.12, dated 12.09.2014 in view of the fact that there is no discussion pertaining to the detailed 3 pages explanation furnished by the Petitioner dated 17.06.2013, in response to the show cause notice dt. 24.05.2013 issued to the Petitioner, nor any consideration of the said explanation furnished by the Petitioner and the same reflects non-application of mind on the part of the 1st Respondent for want of reasons in the impugned order and the explanation of the Petitioner dt. 17.06.2013 had been rejected in one cryptic sentence stating that the Government after careful consideration of the matter has decided to confirm the provisional decision and hereby order to impose a penalty of 15% cut in pension permanently against the Petitioner. 18. Taking into consideration the aforesaid facts and circumstances, and the law laid by the Apex Court in the various judgments i.e. (1) State of M.P. Vs. Narsingh Das reported in AIR 1969 SC 115, (2) State of Gujarat Vs. Patel Raghav Nath reported in AIR 1964 SC 1297, (3) Travncore Rayaons Ltd., Vs. 18. Taking into consideration the aforesaid facts and circumstances, and the law laid by the Apex Court in the various judgments i.e. (1) State of M.P. Vs. Narsingh Das reported in AIR 1969 SC 115, (2) State of Gujarat Vs. Patel Raghav Nath reported in AIR 1964 SC 1297, (3) Travncore Rayaons Ltd., Vs. Union of India, reported in 1978 ELT (378) (SC), (4) In S.N. Mukherjee v. Union of India, reported in AIR 1990 SC 1984 , (5) In Raj Kishore Jha v. State of Bihar, reported JT 2003 (Supp.II) SC 354, (6) In Menaka Gandhi v. Union of India, reported in AIR 1978 SC 597 , (7) In “Mohinder Singh Gill and another v. The Chief Election Commissioner, New Delhi and others reported in (1978) 1 SCC 405 , and (8) In Padfield v Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, reported in (1968) 1 All ER 694 (HL) (referred to and extracted above), the writ petition is allowed, and the order impugned G.O.Ms.No.12, dated 12.09.2014 of the 1st Respondent and Memo No.16/For.III/A1/ 2017, dated 29.05.2017 of the 1st Respondent are set aside and the Respondents are directed to release full pensinory benefits due to the Petitioner within a period of two months from the date of receipt of the copy of the order. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed.