Research › Search › Judgment

Telangana High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 473 (TS)

C. Sujatha v. State of Telangana

2023-06-30

K.SARATH

body2023
JUDGMENT 1. Heard Learned Counsel for the petitioner and Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Services-I appearing for the respondents. 2. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the husband of the petitioner Late Sri J.Yohan, who worked as Head of the Department in Mechanical Engineering at Government Polytechnic, Kosgi, Narayanpet District was expired while in service on 8/6/2021. The petitioner consequent on death of her husband, submitted an application to the concerned authorities to sanction family pension and release terminal/ death-cum-retirement benefits duly enclosing all the relevant documents as per Telangana Revised Pension Rules, 1980. While it being so, surprisingly, the respondent No.2 issued impugned proceedings of recovery of Rs.53,61,878.00 from Terminal benefits of husband of the petitioner on 29/10/2022 as the husband of the petitioner misappropriated the said amounts and stated that the impugned orders issued as per G.O.Ms.No.85, Finance and Planning (FIN.WINGPen. I) Department, dtd. 12/7/1999. 3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner further submits that the impugned recovery orders passed by the respondent No.2 basing on the Special Audit conducted at Government Polytechnic for Women, Jogipet, Sangareddy District found some discrepancies in accounting system in connection with claiming of the bills from 2014-2018, when the husband of the petitioner worked as OSD in the said college. 4. The Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits as per the G.O.Ms.No.85, Finance & Planning (FIN.WING-Pen-I) Department, dtd. 12/7/1999, the terminal benefits of husband of the petitioner cannot be recovered by the authorities. In the said G.O., the Para No.7(a) states that when a Government servant dies before conclusion of the disciplinary proceedings, consequent on the death of Government employee, any disciplinary proceedings will not automatically abates and the same cannot apply to the instant case as the respondents have not initiated any disciplinary proceedings before death of the husband of the petitioner. 5. The Learned Counsel for the petitioner further submits that the family members of the petitioner made application under Right to Information Act for particulars about the disciplinary proceedings pending against the late husband of the petitioner. In response to the same, the respondents given reply on 19/11/2022 and there is no mentioning about the departmental proceedings against the petitioner and stating that there are recoveries as per the orders from the Civil Courts for the housing loan and also mentioning the present impugned orders. In response to the same, the respondents given reply on 19/11/2022 and there is no mentioning about the departmental proceedings against the petitioner and stating that there are recoveries as per the orders from the Civil Courts for the housing loan and also mentioning the present impugned orders. There is no whisper in the information furnished by the authorities with regard to the initiation of the disciplinary/pending disciplinary proceedings if any. As per above said G.O., in the event of any departmental or Judicial proceedings were pending before death of the Government employee/ pensioner and the pensioner is found guilty of grave misconduct or negligence during the period of his service only, the respondent authorities are at liberty to recover the amounts. In the instant case, there is no pendency of disciplinary proceedings against the husband of the petitioner till his death. 6. The Learned Counsel for the petitioner further submits that the respondents not even initiated the disciplinary proceedings during the life time of the death of the husband of the petitioner and the question of applicability of G.O.Ms.No.85, Finance & Planning (FIN.WING-Pen-I) Department, dtd. 12/7/1999 does not arise. Moreover, at the time of Special Audit conducted by the authorities, no notice was issued to the petitioner or her family members. The respondents conducted enquiry behind back of the petitioner and her family members and passed impugned recovery orders. There is no clear finding with regard to misappropriation of the funds by the Special Audit Team. There is no clarity on the misappropriation of amounts of Rs.53,61,878.00. Now, the respondent No.2 without conducting any enquiry and without issuing notices to the affected parties, issued present recovery orders and the same is against to the TSCS (CCA) Rules, 1991 and also the principles of natural justice and requested to allow the Writ Petition. 7. The Learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the following Judgments: 1. The Government of Andhra Pradesh Vs. Smt. M.Veeramma,2017 SCC Online Hyd 284. 2. Mrs J Seshu Kumari Vs. The State of Telangana and others,[W.P.No.13231 of 2021 dtd. 25/3/2022 of High Court for the State of Telangana] 8. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Services-I basing on the counter submits that the husband of the petitioner Late J.Yohan had worked as OSD at Government Polytechnic for Women, Jogipet for the period from 16/7/2014 to 11/7/2018 and his successor has repeatedly requested to settle the accounts. 25/3/2022 of High Court for the State of Telangana] 8. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Services-I basing on the counter submits that the husband of the petitioner Late J.Yohan had worked as OSD at Government Polytechnic for Women, Jogipet for the period from 16/7/2014 to 11/7/2018 and his successor has repeatedly requested to settle the accounts. However, due to unsettlement of Government Accounts she was unable to take the charge of the Principal/ DDO and requested the respondent No.2 to verify the Accounts pertaining to the period of deceased employee at Government Polytechnic for Women, Jogipet. The Special Audit team conducted the Departmental Special Audit and submitted its report on 20/6/2022 stating that during his tenure being Drawing and Disbursing Officer (DDO), he has drawn the amount through self cheques and also not maintained proper vouchers pertains to the purchase material/ items for the Institution purpose. 9. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Services-I further submits that the husband of the petitioner committed financial irregularities and misappropriated the Government funds to the tune of Rs.53.62 lakhs and the respondents rightly ordered impugned recovery of money as per G.O.Ms.No.85, Finance and Planning (FIN. WING-Pen-I) Department, dtd. 12/7/1999. In view of the impugned proceedings, the pension papers of the deceased employee will be forwarded after the clearance of the Government dues or after receipt of the necessary orders on the request of the petitioner from the Government and requested to dismiss the Writ Petition. 10. After hearing both sides and perusing the records, this Court is of the considered view that the husband of the petitioner worked as Head of the Department in Mechanical Engineering at Government Polytechnic, Kosgi, Narayanpet District and expired on 8/6/2021. Now, the respondents issued impugned proceedings for recovery of Rs.53,61,878.00 from the terminal benefits of the husband of the petitioner on the ground that the husband of the petitioner misappropriated the Government funds while he was working as OSD at Government Polytechnic for Women, Jogipet during period from 16/7/2014 to 11/7/2018. The impugned orders passed basing on the Special Audit report dtd. 20/6/2022. 11. It is not a dispute that there is no disciplinary proceeding initiated against husband of the petitioner in his life time with regard to the alleged misappropriation of funds. The impugned orders passed basing on the Special Audit report dtd. 20/6/2022. 11. It is not a dispute that there is no disciplinary proceeding initiated against husband of the petitioner in his life time with regard to the alleged misappropriation of funds. The respondents have not issued any notice to the petitioner or her family members with regard to the misappropriation of funds by the deceased before issuing the impugned proceedings and only communicated the consequential order of Endorsement No.525/19/3/22 dtd. 8/11/2022. The impugned recovery orders dtd. 29/10/2022 was passed by the respondent No.2 basing on the Special Audit Team submitted report on 20/6/2022. But, there is no specific finding about the misappropriation of the amount of Rs.53,61,878.00 and the Special Audit Team given a finding that there are procedural irregularities in using the funds in a very casual way. 12. The findings of the Special Audit team is as follows: "It is submitted that, from the available records, it is observed that, the accounting system has not been followed at all and has been taken in a very casual way. Maximum of the budget bills have been claimed and drawn in cash modes only with no records of the cash being disbursed, giving a scope of doubt for huge misappropriation of Government funds allotted to the Institution. Maximum of the cheques are drawn from bank in self mode". It clearly shows that there is no clear finding of misappropriation of funds by the husband of the deceased and the Special Audit Team expressed only doubt and the same cannot be taken into account as misappropriation of funds and reasons for recovery of deceased employee. 13. In the instant case, no proceedings were pending against the deceased employee on the date of his death and the respondents cannot pass present impugned orders basing on the G.O.Ms.No.85, Finance and Planning (FIN.WING-Pen-I) Department, dtd. 12/7/1999. 14. The Rule-9 of Telangana Revised Pension Rules, 1980 were amended in G.O.Ms.No.85, Finance and Planning (FIN.WING-Pen-I) Department, dtd. 12/7/1999 and after amendment the Sub-Rule 7(a) of Rule-9 of Telangana Revised Pension Rules, 1980 is as follows: "When a Government servant dies before conclusion of the disciplinary proceedings, generally death abates all further proceedings. As such, when Government Servant dies before conclusion of disciplinary proceedings, the proceedings under Rule 9 of the Andhra Pradesh Revised Pension Rules, 1980 also abates. As such, when Government Servant dies before conclusion of disciplinary proceedings, the proceedings under Rule 9 of the Andhra Pradesh Revised Pension Rules, 1980 also abates. If any loss caused or misappropriated the Government amount by the deceased Government Servant is established, in such a cases, the disciplinary proceedings will not automatically abate and it is open to the Government to bring the legal representatives on record and conclude disciplinary proceedings for the purpose of recovery of the same". 15. The above said rule applies when any disciplinary proceedings were initiated and the same are pending before expiry of the deceased employee. In the instant case, no such proceedings were initiated before death of the husband of the petitioner and the impugned orders passed by the respondents are liable to be set aside on the ground that the G.O.Ms.No.85, Finance and Planning (FIN.WING-Pen-I) Department, dtd. 12/7/1999 is not applicable to the instant case. 16. The Judgments relied by the learned Counsel for the petitioner squarely apply to the instant case. The Division Bench of this Court in The Government of Andhra Pradesh Vs. Smt. M.Veeramma (Supra-1) held as follows: "As regards the proceedings of petitioner No.1 in directing the recovery of alleged loss, we are entirely in agreement with the view of the Tribunal that once the disciplinary proceedings have abated, recovery also gets abated. The reason for this is not far to seek. Before the disciplinary proceedings were brought to its logical end, the delinquent died. Had he been alive, there would have been a possibility of his convincing the disciplinary authority to drop further action by submitting his explanation. Such an opportunity was lost with the death of the delinquent. It is precisely for this reason that the death of a delinquent before the conclusion of disciplinary proceedings would bring in the abatement of the disciplinary proceedings. Once the proceedings get abated, every aspect connected therewith will cease to exist in law. It, therefore, follows that the enquiry report which is part of disciplinary proceedings based on which petitioner No.1 has come to the conclusion that the deceased employee has caused loss also ceases to exist in law. Once the proceedings get abated, every aspect connected therewith will cease to exist in law. It, therefore, follows that the enquiry report which is part of disciplinary proceedings based on which petitioner No.1 has come to the conclusion that the deceased employee has caused loss also ceases to exist in law. In the absence of any determination of the employee's liability in the disciplinary proceedings, it is not permissible for the employer to mulct the liability on the family of the deceased based on an enquiry report which has not been taken to its logical end. In this view of the mater, the proceedings of the petitioner No..1 in directing the recovery of alleged loss cannot be sustained..... ..... " 17. The instant case is on better footing than the above said case. There were no disciplinary proceedings against the husband of the petitioner as on the date of his death. The respondents have no power to conduct enquiry against the dead person. Moreover, there is no clear finding against the husband of the petitioner about the misappropriation of the funds. In view of the same, the impugned orders are liable to be set aside and the petitioner is eligible to receive all the terminal benefits of her husband without any recovery. 18. In view of the above findings, this Writ Petition is allowed by setting aside the impugned recovery orders passed in File No.CTE-BG/4/2022-BG-Sec. -CTE dtd. 29/10/2022 and consequential proceedings issued by the respondent No.3 through Endorsement No.525/19/3/22 dtd. 8/11/2022 and the respondents are directed to forward the pension papers for releasing of family pension forthwith and to pay the death-cumretirement benefits of the deceased-husband of the petitioner without any recovery within twelve (12) weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. However, there shall be no order as to costs. 19. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, in this Writ Petition shall stand closed.