Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 196 (AP)

V. Krishnamurthy v. State Of Andhra Pradesh

2025-01-30

K.MANMADHA RAO

body2025
Order : (K. MANMADHA RAO, J.) The Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India , seeking the following relief: “….. to issue an appropriate Writ, Order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus to declaring the action of the 1 st respondent in issuing G.O.Rt.No.713, dated 11-11-2021 framing seven (7) charges against the petitioner as bad, illegal, arbitrary, without jurisdiction, violative of principles of natural justice and Articles 14, 21 & 300A of Constitution of India and con sequently set aside the same….” 2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was appointed as Junior Assistant in the year 1990. Thereafter, the petitioner was promoted as Senior Assistant in the year 2001. Thereafter, the petitioner was given appointment by transfer as Executive Officer-Grade II in the year 2008. After attaining the age of superannuation, the petitioner retired from services on 31.08.2020. Hence, the petitioner submitted all the relevant papers seeking release of retirement benefits including the pension commutation. The 3 rd respondent has only released encashment of earned leave and kept on hold all the other benefits. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed W.P.No.2557 of 2021 and the same is pending. While things stood thus, the 1 st respondent issued the impugned proceedings vide G.O.Rt.No.713, dated 11-11-2021 framing seven charges and the main sum and substance of G.O.Rt.No.713 is that the petitioner has not handed over the charge officially/technically to his successor. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition has been filed. 3. This Court, vide order, dated 17.01.2022, has granted interim suspension of G.O.Rt.No.713, dated 11.11.2021, until further orders. 4. The 1 st respondent filed counter affidavit denying the allegations made in the writ petition and stated that, Seethanagaram Group Temples represented by Executive Officer, Seethanagaram, Guntur district is not shown as party to the writ petition. It is further stated that the Executive Officer, Nuthakki Groupt temples, Guntur district was posted as Relieving Officer vide Commissioner’s Proceedings in Rc.No.E2/15022/4/2020-2, dated 27.08.2020 to the petitioner herein. The Executive Officer vide Lr.No.Nil/2020, dated 06.11.2020 has submitted a report to the 3 rd respondent herein stating that the petitioner has not handed over the Gold, Silver Jewellery, DCB Register, lease files, vouchers, FDRs worth of Rs.2,67,000/-, etc.. to the present Executive Officer and requested the 3 rd respondent to take necessary action. The Executive Officer vide Lr.No.Nil/2020, dated 06.11.2020 has submitted a report to the 3 rd respondent herein stating that the petitioner has not handed over the Gold, Silver Jewellery, DCB Register, lease files, vouchers, FDRs worth of Rs.2,67,000/-, etc.. to the present Executive Officer and requested the 3 rd respondent to take necessary action. The 3 rd respondent directed the Inspector, Endowments Department, Guntur to verify and submit a report in this matter. Accordingly, the Inspector, Endowments Department, Guntur has submitted a report vide Lr.No.Nil/2020, dated 02.01.2021 to the 3 rd respondent. Thereafter, after thorough enquiry, the 3 rd respondent submitted a report to the 2 nd respondent vide Lr.in.Rc.No.A6/4556/2020, dated 03.02.2021 stating that the petitioner has not handed over the charge of Gold, Silver Jewellery, has not updated the DCB register and when verified found that nearly 500 bags of paddy relating to 2006-2007 were not brought forward over to later period. Basing on the report of 3 rd respondent, the 2 nd respondent has submitted a report to the 1 st respondent and the 1 st respondent vide Memo No.REV01-ENDW/383/2021- VIG-IV, dated 17.09.2021 requested the 2 nd respondent to furnish the draft articles of charges to Government within a fortnight and requested to take urgent action to recover amount from the persons responsible including the Retired Executive Officer and submit compliance. The Government vide G.O.Ms.No.251, Revenue (Vig.IV) Department, dated 20.09.2021 under sub- clause (i) of clause (b) of sub-rule(2) of Rule 9 of Revised Pension Rules, 1980 sanctioned permission to initiate departmental proceedings against the petitioner, who retired from service on 31.08.2020 and directed that the said departmental proceedings shall be conducted in accordance with procedure laid down under Rule 20 of Andhra Pradesh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1991. After following the contemplated procedure under law, the 1 st respondent vide G.O.Rt.No.713, Revenue (Vigilinace-IV) Department, dated 11.11.2021 has framed seven (7) articles of charges against the petitioner and directed to submit written statement of defence, if any within ten days from the date of receipt of order. The said G.O. has been communicated by the 2 nd respondent to the petitioner vide Memo in Rc.No.V3/20026/10/2021, dated 24.11.2021 through the 3 rd respondent. 5. Reply affidavit was filed by the petitioner stating that the Executive Officer, Sitaram Group is not a necessary party to the present writ petition. The said G.O. has been communicated by the 2 nd respondent to the petitioner vide Memo in Rc.No.V3/20026/10/2021, dated 24.11.2021 through the 3 rd respondent. 5. Reply affidavit was filed by the petitioner stating that the Executive Officer, Sitaram Group is not a necessary party to the present writ petition. It is further stated that the 1 st respondent without verifying the material papers at pages 24 to 37 filed along with writ affidavit, which are the documents showing that the petitioner has handed over the charge to the executive officer, making allegations that the petitioner has not handed over the charge. It is further stated that the FDR of Rs.2,67,000/- was taken over by D.C.H.Venkata Reddy on 31.08.2020 and acknowledgment was also given by him. It is further stated that, after the retirement of the petitioner on 31.08.2020, the internal communications were made by the authorities on 17.09.2021, 12.10.2021 and thereafter the communication was made to the petitioner on 08.11.2021 regarding the imputation of charges dated 11.11.2021 vide G.O.Rt.No.713 framed against the petitioner. It is further stated that coming to handing over the charge relating to Gold and Silver are concerned, the same were the ornaments decorated to deities and they were never taken from the Archakas as they are sacred one. The Archakas have given statements that the gold and silver are available with them. It is further stated that the petitioner woriled in the said temple from 01.09.2019 to 31.08.2020. In fact, the said temple was closed from 21.03.2020 to 31.08.2020 till retirement of the petitioner because of Covid-19. The vouchers were handed over along with cash book and the same was acknowledged, but while taking the charge on 31.08.2020, no such endorsement was made. It is further stated that the Inspector in his report dated 02.01.2021 has categorically stated that DCB register is only up to 2018-19 and not up to date and without considering the same, the deposit amounts were refunded without any arrears. The FDR also taken by D.C.H.Venkata Reddy on 31.08.2021 and the same was also acknowledged. Therefore, prays to allow the writ petition. 6. Heard Mr.D.V.Sasidhar, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Services-II, for the respondents. 7. The FDR also taken by D.C.H.Venkata Reddy on 31.08.2021 and the same was also acknowledged. Therefore, prays to allow the writ petition. 6. Heard Mr.D.V.Sasidhar, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Services-II, for the respondents. 7. On hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner while reiterating the contents urged in the writ petition, submits that, the petitioner has handed over the entire charge to the successor on 31.08.2020, what the petitioner was received at the time of appointment of Executive Officer on 18.07.2019. If there are any discrepancies relating to entries in DCB register, prior to petitioner taking of charge, the petitioner cannot be responsible for the same. It is the predecessor who is responsible for the same. He further submits that, Rule 9(1) of the Revised Pension Rules prescribes that State Government can withhold pension or gratuity full and part. In case, the petitioner causes any percuniary loss to the Government and to the local authority, if any department or judiciary proceedings the pensioner is found guilty of grave misconduct or negligence during the period of his service, including service rendered upon re-employment after retirement. He further submits that, Rule 9(2)(a) of the Revised Pension Rules mentions that the departmental proceedings referred in Sub-Rule (1) whether before retirement or during reemployment shall after retirement, deemed to the proceedings initiated under this Rule and shall continue. He further submits that, Rule 9(2)(b) is concerned is continuation of Rule 9(1) and (2)(a). If any departmental proceedings with regard to the offences mentioned under Rules 9(1) i.e., grave misconduct or negligence during the period of his service, the departmental proceedings can be instituted with the sanction of the Government and the same shall not be event which took place prior to four years before such institution. He further submits that it is not the case that during the service of the petitioner and before retirement, charges are framed, but the charges were framed on 11.11.2021 and the petitioner was retired from service on 31.08.2020, as such the charges are framed after a lapsed of around 15 months, which is illegal, arbitrary, void and liable to be quashed. 8. To support his contention, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in State Bank of India and others Vs. 8. To support his contention, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in State Bank of India and others Vs. Navin Kumar Sinha , [ 2024 INSC 874 ] , wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court held as follows: “As has been held by this Court on more than one occasion, a subsisting disciplinary proceeding i.e., one initiated before superannuation of the delinquent officer may be continued post superannuation by creating a legal fiction of continuance of service of the delinquent officer for the purpose of conclusion of the disciplinary proceeding (in this case as per Rule 19(3) of the Service Rules). But no disciplinary proceeding can be initiated after the delinquent employee or officer retires from service on attaining the age of superannuation or after the extended period of service.” Therefore, learned counsel for the petitioner while relying upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, prays to allow the writ petition. 9. Per Contra, learned Assistant Government Pleader while reiterating the contents made in the counter affidavit, submits that, it is not the case of the petitioner that the Government has initiated departmental proceedings against him after four years of his retirement. Admittedly, the charges seven in number framed against the petitioner by the Government vide G.O.Rt.No.713, dated 11.11.2021 are happened on the date of his retirement i.e., 31.08.020 on attaining the age of superannuation. The action initiated by the Government against the petitioner just one year after his retirement. As per Sub-Clause (i) of Clause (b) of Sub-Rule (2) of Rule 9 of A.P., Revised Pension Rules 1980, the Government i.e., the 1 st respondent herein is competent to accord sanction to initiate Departmental Enquiry against retired Government Servant and to take such action against him. The petitioner has not challenged G.O.Ms.No.251, Revenue (Vig.IV) Department, dated 20.09.2021 wherein sanction was accorded to initiate departmental proceedings against the petitioner, who retired from service on 31.08.2020. The petitioner has not challenged G.O.Ms.No.251, Revenue (Vig.IV) Department, dated 20.09.2021 wherein sanction was accorded to initiate departmental proceedings against the petitioner, who retired from service on 31.08.2020. He further submits that, Rule 9 of Andhra Pradesh Revised Pension Rules , 1980 is important for consideration which envisages right of Government to withhold or withdraw pension and clause (b) of sub-rule (2) held as “the departmental proceedings if not initiated while the Government servant was not in service, whether before his retirement or during his re-employment (a)shall not be instituted save the sanction of the Government (b)shall not be in respect of any event which to place more than (4) years before such institution.” Hence, as per the rule position, the G.O.Rt.No.713, dated 11.11.2021 is valid and legal. Therefore, learned Assistant Government Pleader prays to dismiss the writ petition. 10. Perused the record. 11. On a perusal of the material on record, this Court observed that, the petitioner was given appointment by transfer as Executive Officer-Grade II in the year 2008 and the petitioner was retired from the service on 31.08.2020 after attaining the age of superannuation. After the retirement of the petitioner, the 1 st respondent vide G.O.Rt.No.713, dated 11.11.2021 framed seven charges against the petitioner. 12. In SBI Vs. C.B.Dhall , [ 1998 (2) SCC 544 ] regarding Rule 20B of disciplinary proceedings, the Hon’ble Apex Court held thus: “Under Rule 20-B disciplinary proceedings if initiated against an employee before he retires from service could be continued and concluded even after his retirement and for the purpose of conclusion of the disciplinary proceedings, the employees is deemed to have continued in service but for no other purpose. 13. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and on considering the submissions of both the learned counsels and also the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Navin Kumar Sinha ’s case (stated supra), this Court is of the opinion that, no disciplinary proceeding can be initiated after the delinquent employee or officer retires from service on attaining the age of superannuation or after the extended period of service. Hence, this Court is inclined to allow the writ petition setting aside the impugned G.O.Rt.No.713, dated 11.11.2021 issued by the 1 st respondent. 14. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed. Hence, this Court is inclined to allow the writ petition setting aside the impugned G.O.Rt.No.713, dated 11.11.2021 issued by the 1 st respondent. 14. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed. The impugned G.O.Rt.No.713, Revenue (Vigilance-IV) Department, dated 11.11.2021 issued by the 1 st respondent is hereby set aside. No costs. 15. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.