The court emphasized the need for a distinction in imposing punishment on retired employees with respect to withholding pension, considering it as an insurance for employees in the last quarter of their life, and highlighted the chronic delays at every stage of the disciplinary proceedings.

JUDGMENT

NYAPATHY VIJAY, J. - The present Writ Petition is filed questioning the Judgment in O.A.No.7068 of 2013 dtd. 1/8/2017, which was allowed.

2. The brief facts of the case leading to the present Writ Petition are as follows and the parties are described as in the Tribunal:- The applicant was appointed as Forest Range Officer and subsequently promoted as Assistant Conservator of Forests. During the period 1/7/1993 to 14/3/1996, the applicant had worked as Divisional Forest Officer, Social Forestry, Kurnool.

3. On 29/11/1999, the applicant was issued Charge Memorandum under A.P.C.C.S (CCA) Rules, 1991 framing certain charges to the effect (i) Applicant did not submit records/information in connection with Circle Officer inspection by Chief Conservator of Forests (JFM) despite clear instructions; ii) Applicant allowed F.R.Os under his control to purchase Polythene Bags, Seedlings Barbed Wire, PVC Pipes, Cement and Stone Monolithic without submitting estimates; iii) Applicant failed to submit fortnightly diaries and log book extracts as prescribed under A.P. Forest Department Code; iv) Applicant failed to submit information about District schemes, Accounts and Vouchers in respect of centrally sponsored schemes to conservation of forests.

4. On 7/7/2000, the Conservator of Forests was appointed as Enquiry Officer. About three (3) months thereafter, the Enquiry Officer was changed and Conservator of Forests, Wildlife Management was appointed as Enquiry Officer on 27/10/2000 and about two years thereafter, the Enquiry Officer was again changed and Conservator of Forests, Kurnool was appointed on 31/8/2002 as Enquiry Officer. The Enquiry Officer submitted his enquiry report on 21/6/2003 holding that Charge No.I as proved, Charge No.II as partly proved, Charge No.III as not proved and Charge No.IV was recommended to be dropped. About one year thereafter, show-cause notice was issued on 7/7/2004 calling for explanation from the applicant on the findings in the enquiry report. The applicant submitted his explanation thereto within five days i.e., on 12/7/2004 and the applicant retired from service on 31/7/2004. The applicant is being paid provisional pension @ 75% of basic.

5. An year thereafter, Memo dtd. 24/8/2005 was issued calling for explanation from the applicant proposing punishment of withholding pension in full, besides recovery of Rs.3, 31, 182.00 under Rule 9 of A.P. Revised Pension Rules, 1980. This Memo dtd. 24/8/2005 was served on 4/2/2009 through the Divisional Forest Officer, Warangal vide Proceedings No.2097/2002/S2, dtd. 30/1/2009. Notwithstanding the explanation of the applicant, impugned G.O.Ms.No.75, dtd. 29/8/2013 was issued by Respondent No.1 withholding pension permanently, besides recovery of Rs.3, 31, 182.00. Hence, the O.A.No.7068 of 2013 was filed questioning the impugned proceedings.

6. In the O.A, the applicant apart from raising pleas on merits also pleaded that he suffered paralysis in 2008 due to brain hemorrhage and subsequently underwent by-pass surgery at Usha Mullapudi, Cardiac Centre, Hyderabad. The applicant had pleaded that the provisional pension @ 75% of basic was just not sufficient to meet the day-to-day expenditure for medication.

7. The Tribunal on 1/8/2017 passed a detailed order declaring the impugned G.O.Ms.No.75, dtd. 24/8/2013 as illegal and arbitrary and that the applicant is entitled to all consequential benefits of fixation of pension and arrears of pension.

8. Almost after a lapse of 5 years, the present Writ Petition was filed on 28/3/2022 questioning the orders of the Tribunal and the short excuse for delay that was given that due to non-tracing of the original records there was delay in filing Writ Petition.

9. The point that arises for consideration in this Writ Petition is whether the order of Tribunal is sustainable?

10. On Merits of the charges:- Firstly, coming to the merits of the enquiry, the Tribunal at Paras 14 and 16 of its order, after going through the enquiry rep