IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO, J.
D. Sudheer Babu – Petitioner
Versus
The State of Andhra Pradesh – Respondent
Writ Petition No. 11031 of 2021
Decided On : 28-10-2022
PENSION - WITHHOLDING - PENDING DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS - NO CHARGES PENDING ON DATE OF RETIREMENT - ARBITRARY AND VIOLATIVE OF ARTICLE 21 - PENSION TO BE RELEASED.
Fact of the Case:
Petitioner, a government employee, was denied pensionary benefits upon retirement due to pending disciplinary proceedings against him. The petitioner argued that there were no charges pending against him on the date of retirement and that the withholding of pension was arbitrary and violative of Article 21 of the Constitution.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that there were no charges or charge memo or charge sheet pending against the petitioner as on the date of retirement, i.e. on 31.08.2020. The court also noted that the error in the service register of the accused officer, which led to the disciplinary proceedings, was due to a mistake of the office and could not be attributed to the petitioner.
Issues: 1. Whether the withholding of pensionary benefits to the petitioner was arbitrary and violative of Article 21 of the Constitution.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in K.V. Janakiraman's case (supra), which held that a Government servant shall not be denied pensionary benefits unless there are charges or charge memo or charge sheet filed against him under Rules 9(2)(a) and 9(6) of the Andhra Pradesh Revised Pension Rules, 1980.
Final Decision: The court allowed the writ petition and directed the authorities to process the pension of the petitioner in accordance with law within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of the order.
ORDER :
1. This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the following relief:
2. The present Writ Petition is filed for non-payment of pensionary benefits to the petitioner on attaining the age of superannuation on the ground that disciplinary cases pending against him, relying on Article 351A of the Pension Code and Rule 9(2)(a) of the Andhra Pradesh Revised Pension Rules, 1980, after retirement of the petitioner.
3. The case of the petitioner is that he was appointed as Assistant Executive Engineer on 13.05.1985 in the Panchayat Raj Department, and thereafter, he was promoted to the post of Deputy Executive Engineer on 01.10.1994 and Executive Engineer (In-charge) on 13.04.2010 and regularly promoted in the year 2018 and he was promoted to the post of Superintending Engineer on 22.02.2019 and placed as In-charge Chief Engineer/Joint Secretary on 01.07.2019 and he was finally promoted as CE/JS regularly on 31.08.2019 and worked as such till his retirement on attaining the age of superannuation on 31.08.2020. The Government has issued G.O.Rt. No. 762, Panchayat Raj and Rural Development (E.I) Department dated 30.12.2019, whereunder the orders were issued regarding retirement of certain Engineers, on attaining the age of superannuation during the year 2020 and the petitioner and others were permitted to retire from service without prejudice to the disciplinary cases pending against them and also subject to the condition that the disciplinary proceedings shall continue against them under Rule 9(2)(a) of the Andhra Pradesh Revised Pension Rules, 1980, after their retirement. Thereafter, the petitioner herein has made a representation dated 30.01.2020 to delete the condition in paragraph No. 2 of the said G.O. dated 30.12.2019. As no orders are passed against the said representation, the present Writ Petition came to be filed seeking a direction to the respondents for release of the pensionary benefits on the ground that no disciplinary proceedings are pending against him on the date of retirement under Rule 9(2)(a) of the Andhra Pradesh Revised Pension Rules, 1980, and he has not committed any irregularity as alleged in the disciplinary proceedings.
4. Learned counsel for the respondents filed counter and he would submit that G.O.Rt. No. 762, Panchcayat Raj and Rural Development (Estt.I) Department dated 30.12.2019, was issued permitting the petitioner and another individual to retire from service on 31.08.2020 without prejudice to the disciplinary proceedings against him. The contention of the learned counsel for the respondents is that the petitioner has allowed one Sri D.Ramesh Kumar, AEE, PR, Dattaluru Mandal, SPSR Nellore District, beyond his date of superannuation, i.e. the actual date of superannuation on 31.07.2013 and he has been continued in service till the date of ACB trap on 28.11.2016, wherein he was shown as Accused Officer No. 1. The Government, vide G.O.Rt. No. 384, Panchayat Raj and Rural Development (Vig.II) Department dated 15.07.2021, accorded sanction for initiation of disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner and others under Rule 24 of the Andhra Pradesh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1991, and vide G.O.Ms. No. 51, Panchayat Raj and Rural Development (Vig.II) Department dated 15.07.2021 and G.O.Rt. No. 394, Panchayat Raj and Rural Development (Vig.II)
Harsh Kumar Sharma vs. State of Punjab
Union of India and Others vs. Anil Kumar
Provisional pension must be paid during disciplinary proceedings, ensuring employee rights are upheld under the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of A.P. Revised Pension Rules, 1980, particularly Rule 9, and G.O.Ms.No.1097 in initiating disciplinary proceedings against a retir....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.