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 retired government employee and the provision for provisional pension under Rule 52.

ORDER :

1. The present Writ Petition is filed seeking a direction to the respondents to release the petitioner’s service pension from 01.10.2019 and retirement benefits of gratuity and commutation amount in pursuance of G.O.Rt.No.1097, Finance and Planning (FE. Pen.I) Department, dated 22.06.2000 and to award interest @ 18% per annum on all retiremental and consequential benefits relying on the Judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in “J.N. Goel and others v. Union of India and Others, 1997 (2) SCC 440 and “L. Mehrotra and others v. State of U.P. and others, 2002 SCC (L&S) 278.

2. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and Learned Government Pleader for Municipal Administration and Urban Development.

3. The Pleadings in the affidavit filed in support of Writ Petition, in circumlocutory are that the petitioner was appointed in the year 1978 as NMR in the then Town Planning Trust, later he was appointed as typist on 21.08.1986, later he was promoted as Senior Assistant and Administrative Officer under the direct control of the Divisional Forest Officer as per practice in vogue. Eventually, he was retired from the service on 30.09.2019 on attaining the age of superannuation of 60 years.

4. It is further contended that a three Member Committee was constituted to enquire into the matter for the irregularities committed by the petitioner along with others and the committee has recommended to initiate the disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner and three others. Basing upon the recommendations of the Committee, a notice was issued to the petitioner herein vide memo in RC No.79/2018/A1 dated 02.07.2019 and the petitioner herein was supplied with documents on 01.10.2019 and directed the petitioner herein to submit his explanation to the supra stated memo. Accordingly, the petitioner herein has submitted his explanation to the memo.

5. Subsequently, the respondents herein have framed charges against all the charged officers vide proceedings in RC No.79/2018/A1(e-Office No.14038/25/2019) dated 03.10.2020 and the same was served on the Writ petitioner under Rule 24 of A.P. Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1991. Due to the charges framed against the petitioner herein, the respondents herein have retained the amount of Rs.2,22,112/-, which is encashment of earned leave and pension.

6. In the aforesaid factual backdrop of the case, the present Writ Petition came to be filed on the ground that the petitioner herein have not committed any irregularity and if the respondents have found any irregularity, that is not by the petitioner and three other charged officers and the committee constituted by the respondents is not a valid committee and they are not versed with the contract work and ought not have been believed on such committee report for initiation of disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner herein and it is also contended that there are no disciplinary proceedings pending against the petitioner herein as on the date of retirement, therefore, the respondents ought not to have been retained the leave encashment amount and pension under Section 9 of the Andhra Pradesh Revised Pension Rules, 1980 and it is also contended that under sub-rule (2)(b) (i) of Rule 9 of A.P. Revised Pension Rules, 1980, no sanction is required from Government to take action against retired employee, in view of the instructions laid down under G.O.Ms.No.1097, Finance and Planning Department dated 22.06.2000 which is an amendment to that Rule 9 of A.P. Revised Pension Rules. And pleaded to direct the respondents to release the retained amount and pension.

7. And it is appears that from the affidavit that the Metropolitan Commissioner, VMRDA has sanctioned provisional pension @ 75% vide proceeding No.14038/25/2019/ Admin-VMRDA dated 24.02.2000 under Rule 52 of A.P. Revised pension rules 1970.

8. Learned counsel for the respondents have denied all the averments made in the affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition inter alia