Back
2020 Supreme(AP) 766
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
G. Shyam Prasad, J.
M. Venkata Reddy – Appellant
Versus
State of Andhra Pradesh and Ors. – Respondents
WP No. 12876 of 2020
Decided On : 18-08-2020
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Ramalingeswara Rao
For the Respondent: Government Pleader
Rule 9(2)(b)(ii) of the A.P. Revised Pension Rules, 1980 prohibits the initiation of departmental proceedings against a retired Government employee for an incident pertaining to 4 years anterior to the date of such initiation, unless the proceedings were instituted while the employee was in service.
Headnote:
PENSION - WITHHOLDING OR WITHDRAWAL - A.P. REVISED PENSION RULES, 1980 - RULE 9(2)(B)(II) - CHARGE MEMO ISSUED AGAINST RETIRED GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEE FOR INCIDENT PERTAINING TO 4 YEARS ANTERIOR TO DATE OF INITIATION - NOT MAINTAINABLE.
Fact of the Case:
Petitioner, a retired Prohibition & Excise Inspector, challenged the impugned Charge Memo issued by the 1st respondent for an incident relating to the year 2013, beyond his retirement, contrary to Rule 9(2)(b)(ii) of the A.P. Revised Pension Rules, 1980 (the Rules 1980).
Finding of the Court:
The court observed that the departmental proceedings against the petitioner were initiated after his retirement and for an incident that occurred more than four years before such initiation, which is contrary to Rule 9(2)(b)(ii) of the Rules 1980.
Issues: Whether the impugned Charge Memo issued against the petitioner, a retired Government employee, for an incident pertaining to 4 years anterior to the date of initiation, is maintainable under law.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the impugned Charge Memo was not maintainable under law as it was issued against a retired Government employee for an incident pertaining to 4 years anterior to the date of initiation, and the proceedings were not initiated while the employee was in service.
Final Decision: The court quashed the impugned Charge Memo and disposed of the writ petition with no order as to costs.
ORDER :
G. Shyam Prasad, J.
1. This is a writ of mandamus filed by the petitioner for declaring the impugned Charge Memo in G.O. Rt. No. 831 Revenue (Vigilance-IV) Department, dated 13.6.2018, issued by the 1st respondent for the incident relates to the year 2013 i.e., beyond his retirement, contrary to Rule 9(2)(b)(ii) of A.P. Revised Pension Rules, 1980 (for short "the Rules 1980"), as illegal and arbitrary.
2. Heard the arguments of learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader for Services-I appearing for the respondents.
3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in WP No. 13493 of 2019 and sought for similar relief in this matter.
4. In the above said writ petition, the petitioner worked as Excise Inspector and retired from service on 31.10.2013. A Charge memo was issued pertaining to the incident in the year 2011. The same was issued on 29.11.2018, but it was served on the petitioner on 19.12.2018. As per Rule 9(6) of the Rules 1980, the explanation for regularization under 351-A provides that departmental proceedings shall be deemed to have been instituted when the charges framed against the pensioner were issued to him or from the date of his being placed under suspension, if applicable.
5. In the light of the judgment in the case of State of U.P. v. Shri Krishna Pandey, (1996) 9 SCC 395, this Court observed that departmental proceedings must be instituted before lapse of 4 years form the date on which the event of misconduct takes place. In the case referred above, the charges pertaining to the period are more than 4 years prior to the retirement of the petitioner. On that ground the charge memo was quashed. A common order was passed by a Division Bench of this Court in WP Nos. 25587, 26311 and 26381 of 2018, dated 15.11.2018, wherein reliance was placed on the judgment in the State of U.P.'s case (supra).
6. Coming to the facts of the present case, the petitioner was allowed to retire from service as Prohibition & Excise Inspector, Guntur. After his retirement, the 1st respondent herein issued a Charge memo in G.O. Rt. No. 831, for the incident relating to the year 2013. The petitioner has retired from service on 28.2.2017.
7. Learned Counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on Rule 9(2)(b)(ii) of Rules 1980, and submits that, charge memo dated 13.6.2018 was issued contrary to the above said provision. Rule 9(2)(b)(ii) reads as under:
"9. Right of Government to withhold or withdraw pension:-
(1) xxxx........
(2) "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) xxx
(b) The Departmental proceedings, if not instituted while the Government servant was in service, whether before his retirement or during his 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"
8. The facts of the case are that, the petitioner joined as a Constable in Excise Department on 2.10.1984 and later was promoted as driver. He was then posted at Vijayawada on 17.7.1990. After a few years on 17.4.1994 he was promoted as Head Constable and posted at Achampet, further he was promoted as Sub-Inspector, Prohibition & Excise on 24.11.2000. Thereafter he worked as Sub-Inspector of Police till 8.8.2008, and also worked in Guntur-II Town Station, as Sub-Inspector till 28.9.2011. Later he was promoted as Prohibition & Excise Inspector on 27.8.2012. Then on 28.2.2017 he had retired from service. By the date of his promotion, Charge memos were pending against him. Subsequent to his date of retirement, the 1st respondent issued sanction order under Rule
