The central legal point established in the judgment is that disciplinary proceedings must be conducted in a timely manner, and the imposition of penalties after the retirement of the petitioner is contrary to Rule 9(2)(b)(ii) of the Revised Pension Rules.

ORDER:

This Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is filed for the following relief:-

“…… to issue a Writ, Order or Direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring G.O.Rt.No.137, Industries & Commerce (Vigilance) Department, dated 01.08.2022 imposing the penalty of 15% cut in pension permanently against the petitioner as wholly illegal, arbitrary, discriminatory and violative of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India apart from being violative of principles of natural Justice and consequently to declare that the Petitioner is entitled for full pension and pass such other order or orders...”

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents.

3. The brief facts of the case are that petitioner was appointed as Assistant Development Officer in the year 1982 through APPSC and posted in the office of Assistant Director, Handlooms and Textiles, Kurnool vide proceedings dated 02.07.1982. Later, he was promoted as Development officer on 19.03.1996 and thereafter, as Assistant Director of Handlooms and Textiles on 10.12.2009. On attaining the age of Superannuation, while working as Assistant Director(H&T) in the office of Deputy Director (ENf.)/Regional Deputy Director (H&T) Tirupati, he was permitted to retire from service with effect from 30.4.2011 vide proceedings dated 27.04.2011 issued by the Joint Director (H&T), Office of Commissioner of Handlooms & Textiles & Commissioner for Apparel Export Parks, A.P. Hyderabad.

4. After 10 months of his retirement, the respondent No.1 herein issued Articles of Charge in G.O.Rt.No.80, Industries & Commerce (Vigilance) Department, dated 16.02.2012 framing 03 (three) charges against the petitioner alleging that while he was working as Development Officer (H&T), Ananthapur during the period from 1996-2004 and 2008-2009, that the:-

I) Petitioner had failed to find out the genuineness of the records of five societies viz.

i) Shirdi Sai SWCS, Ravulacheruvu

2) Sri Annapumeswari SWCS, Rayadurg

3) Aradhana SWCS, Kesepali

4) Sri Lakshmi Bhavani SWCS and

5) Sri Chandrasekhara SWCS, Vadiampeta, which created bogus records of membership, production & sales to claim inflated Marketing Incentives and caused misappropriation of funds sanctioned to those societies to a tune of Rs 49,71,900/-,

II) Petitioner Failed to detect bogus membership, bogus inflation, bogus purchase of yarn and bogus production and sales in Nandini SWCs, Dharmawavaram and recommended for sanction of excess credit/bogus marketing incentives of Rs.6,09,500/-, thereby caused misappropriation of funds in the society,

III) Petitioner failed to conduct inspections of the societies periodically/ rectification of defects pointed in audit/supervision of Primary Weavers Co-operative Societies as instructed from time to time and thus, petitioner exhibited gross negligence and misconduct in discharging the legitimate duties entrusted to the petitioner which is in contravention to Rule 3 of APCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964.

5. Consequently, an inquiry officer was appointed who submitted his report on 11.02.2013 holding that the charge Nos.1 to 3 were partly proved. After that, a show cause notice was issued vide Memo dated 26.03.2016 as to why 15% cut in pension on permanent basis should not be imposed against the petitioner under Rule 9(2)(a) of A.P. Revised Pension Rules, 1980. Finally, on 11.08.2022 Government issued orders vide G.O.Rt.No.137, Industries & Commerce (Vigilance Department, imposing the punishment of cut in pension by 15% on permanent basis.

6. The learned counsel appearing for petitioner submitted that the impugned order cutting 15% cut in pension permanently by 2nd respondent is erroneous as the said order is passed without considering his explanations to the charges, which the petitioner submitted as follows:

i. 1st charge explanation: until June 2006, Silk Weavers Co-operative Societies were under the control of Sericulture Dep