Research › Search › Judgment

Telangana High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 939 (TS)

P. Prem Prasad v. State of Telangana

2025-08-07

P.SAM KOSHY, SUDDALA CHALAPATHI RAO

body2025
ORDER : 1. Heard Mr. M.Murtuza Ali Faruqui, learned counsel for petitioner, Mr. S.Satyanaryana Rao, learned Government Pleader for Services-I for respondent Nos.1 and 2 and Mr. B.Rajeshwar Reddy, learned Government Pleader for State of Andhra Pradesh Counsel for respondent Nos.3 to 5. Perused the record. 2. Aggrieved by the charge memo issued on 26.02.2018, the instant writ petition has been filed. 3. The charge memo has been issued by the Tribunal Constituted for Disciplinary Proceedings by the Government of Telangana. 4. The question to be considered is did the Government of Telangana have the jurisdiction and authority to issue charge memo to the petitioner, who after bifurcation of the State had got allocated to the State of Andhra Pradesh and further who stood retired from the service while working with the Government of Andhra Pradesh w.e.f., 30.06.2016. 5. The petitioner viz., P. Prem Prasad was an employee working with the Prohibition and Excise Department. He was initially appointed as Excise Inspector in the year 1982, got promoted as Assistant Excise Superintendent in the year 1996 and further got promoted as Excise Superintendent in March 2002. In due course of time, he was further promoted as Assistant Commissioner on 01.01.2010 and later was promoted as Deputy Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise on 02.08.2012. Working on the said post, he stood retired on attaining the age of superannuation w.e.f. 30.06.2016. Till the date of retirement, there were no disciplinary proceedings pending against the petitioner. The petitioner, however, in the course of settlement of his post-retirement benefits was given only 75% of the pension. However, the other post-retirement benefits have till date not been settled, as per the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner. 6. Meanwhile, however, the instant impugned charge memo dated 26.02.2018 has been issued by the Tribunal for Disciplinary Proceedings for the State of Telangana alleging that the petitioner seems to have committed misconduct under Rule 3(1) and (2) of the Telangana State Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1964 read with Rule 2(b) of the Telangana State Civil Services (Disciplinary Proceedings Tribunal) Rules, 1989. 7. The petitioner has assailed the charge memo on the aspect of certain grave irregularities said to have been committed while he was discharging his duties in the year 2011. 7. The petitioner has assailed the charge memo on the aspect of certain grave irregularities said to have been committed while he was discharging his duties in the year 2011. Thus, a plain reading of the charge memo would clearly indicate that the alleged misconduct was of a period which is about 7 years earlier to the date of issuance of the charge memo. It was also more than 5 years before the petitioner stood retired from the service. Secondly, the petitioner retired from the service as an officer of the Government of Andhra Pradesh and not as an officer of Government of Telangana. 8. In the said context, we need to look into the provisions of Rule 9(2)(b)(ii) which, for ready reference, is being reproduced hereunder: 9. Right of Government to withhold or withdraw pension :- (1) The State Government reserves themselves the right of withholding a pension or gratuity, or both, either in full or in part, or withdrawing a pension in full or in part, whether permanently or for a specific period and of ordering recovery from a pension or gratuity of the whole or part of any pecuniary loss caused, to the Government and to the local authority if, in any departmental or judicial 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: Provided that the Telangana State Public Service Commission shall be consulted before any final orders are passed. [However, consultation with the Telangana Pradesh Public Service Commission is not necessary, when the pensioner is found guilty in any judicial proceedings] Provided further that where a part of pension is withheld or withdrawn, the amount of such pension shall not be reduced below the limit specified in sub-rule (5) of Rule 45. Provided also that the penalty of withholding of entire pension or gratuity or both may be imposed against the retired Government servant upon being found guilty or upon conviction in a court of law for the offences of grave charges namely proved cases of misappropriation, bribery, bigamy, corruption, moral turpitude, forgery, outraging the modesty of women and misconduct. Provided also that the penalty of withholding of entire pension or gratuity or both may be imposed against the retired Government servant upon being found guilty or upon conviction in a court of law for the offences of grave charges namely proved cases of misappropriation, bribery, bigamy, corruption, moral turpitude, forgery, outraging the modesty of women and misconduct. (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. Note:- The function of the disciplinary authority is only to reach a finding on the charges and to submit a report recording its findings to the Government. It is then for the Government to consider the findings and take a final decision under this rule. In case Government decide to take action under this rule in the light of the findings of the disciplinary authority, the Government will serve the person concerned with a show-cause notice specifying the action proposed to be taken under this rule and the person concerned will be required to submit his reply to the show-cause notice within such time as may be specified by the Government. The Government will consider the reply and consult the Telangana Public Service Commission. If as a result of such consideration proceedings will be issued in the name of the 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) xxx xxx xxx (ii) shall not be in respect of any event which took place more than four years before such institution.” 9. The plain reading of the aforesaid provision of law would clearly reflect the fact that once the Government employee stands retired without any disciplinary proceedings, the same could not had been initiated post-retirement without the approval and sanction of the Government. The plain reading of the aforesaid provision of law would clearly reflect the fact that once the Government employee stands retired without any disciplinary proceedings, the same could not had been initiated post-retirement without the approval and sanction of the Government. Secondly, even if the Government intends to initiate disciplinary proceedings, it could only be in respect of an event or an alleged misconduct which ought to had been committed at least within 4 years from the date of issuance of the charge memo. As is indicated above, in the instant case, the charge memo has been issued after a period of around 7 years from the alleged period of incident and also is more than 5 years earlier to his period of retirement. Thus, we do not have any hesitation in reaching to the conclusion that the issuance of the charge memo on 26.02.2018 is per se in violation of provisions of Rule 9(2)(b)(ii). The view of this Bench stands fortified from the decision rendered in the recent past by the Division Bench of this High Court itself under somewhat similar circumstances where the Division Bench is referring to the same rule position. Almost similar set of facts have been decided and upheld that such a charge memo which has been issued is hit by embargo under Rule 9 (2)(b) (ii) of the Rules of 1980. The said judgment is rendered in the case of C. Mallem Kondaiah vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and Others , 2019 (1) ALD 596 (DB). 10. In addition to the aforesaid factual matrix, there is still yet another ground which is weighing more in the mind of this Bench i.e., whether in the light of the petitioner having stood allocated to the State of Andhra Pradesh on the bifurcation of the two States and for all practical reasons, he having become an officer of the Government of Andhra Pradesh, could the charge memo be at all issued by the Government of Telangana even if it be pertaining to the event or period of misconduct under the unified State of Andhra Pradesh. In the opinion of this Bench, once when the petitioner stood allocated to the State of Andhra Pradesh and the petitioner having gone and joined in the allocated State i.e., State of Andhra Pradesh, for all practical reasons, he becomes an officer of the Government of Andhra Pradesh. In the opinion of this Bench, once when the petitioner stood allocated to the State of Andhra Pradesh and the petitioner having gone and joined in the allocated State i.e., State of Andhra Pradesh, for all practical reasons, he becomes an officer of the Government of Andhra Pradesh. The disciplinary authority immediately becomes the officers superior to the petitioner in the Government of Andhra Pradesh. 11. In the given circumstances, the disciplinary proceedings if at all were to be initiated ought to had been initiated by the employer under whom the petitioner was working or under whom the petitioner has retired i.e. Government of Andhra Pradesh. The Government of Telangana could not have usurped the powers of the disciplinary authority for initiation of the disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner in the given factual background. For this reason also, the impugned charge memo becomes bad in law. 12. In view of the same, we are left with no other option, but to allow the writ petition and quash the impugned order with consequences to follow. Now that the disciplinary proceedings stands quashed by this Court, it is expected that the Government of Andhra Pradesh which, till date has not finalized the retirement dues, may finalise the retirement dues forthwith within an outer limit of three months. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.