IMPORTANT POINT
IMPORTANT POINT
Prolonged disciplinary proceedings against retired employees without justification can lead to quashing of the proceedings, emphasizing the need for timely action.

ORDER :

This writ petition is filed to quash Charge Memo dated 31.03.2011 and the proceedings dated 23.09.2017 and declare the same as contrary to the Rule 9(2)(b)(I) & (II) of the A.P.Revised Pension Rules, 1980 (for short, ‘the Rules 1980’).

2. Heard Sri P.Amrender, learned counsel for petitioner, learned Government Pleader for Transport appearing for respondent Nos.1 and 2.

3. The brief facts leading to filing of the present writ petition are that petitioner was directly recruited and appointed as Assistant Motor Vehicle Inspector in January, 1984 and was allotted to Zone-VI of the united State of Andhra Pradesh and was promoted as Motor Vehicles Inspector (MVI) on 11.02.1999 and retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation on 31.05.2012. While so, when the petitioner was working as MVI at RTA Check-post, Zaheerabad, a surprise check was conducted by the ACB officials on the intervening night of 27/28.08.2009 and found that the petitioner along with one private person, by name, Mohd. Haneef, indulging corrupt practices and collecting bribes and further petitioner could not render full and true account of the cash of Rs.40,770/- found in his possession at the time of surprise check; that petitioner was asked to submit factual report and accordingly, he had submitted factual report on 06.05.2010. Thereafter, petitioner was issued charge memo dated 24.06.2010 proposing to hold an inquiry against the petitioner and the petitioner was also served with Annexures -I, II, III & IV.

4. It is contended that on the date of retirement, petitioner was served with proceedings R.No.1044/C3/2008-8, dated 22.11.2011 stating that his retirement is subject to the condition that the retirement shall be without prejudice to the action to be taken in the ACB case pending against him in R.No.2297/V3/ 2011. After retirement, petitioner submitted representation dated 18.06.2012 to the respondent authorities to furnish copies of the alleged ACB cases. However, respondents did not furnish the documents sought by the petitioner. Petitioner once again made representation to the Transport Commissioner on 07.12.2013 requesting to furnish charge memo i.e., R.No.2297/V3/V2/2011. Thereafter, the Transport Commissioner furnished the charge memo No.2297/V3/2011 dated 31.03.2011 on 04.01.2017, to which petitioner submitted a detailed representation on 21.01.2017 stating that he retired from service on 31.05.2012 and the charge memo dated 31.03.2011 was communicated for the first time on 04.01.2017 i.e., after more than four years from the date of his retirement. Petitioner submitted representations dated 21.01.2017 and 06.02.2017 requesting the respondents to drop the proceedings. However, there was no response. The respondent No.1 vide Memo dated 22.02.2017 requested the 2nd respondent to furnish his remarks on the representation of the petitioner. However, the 2nd respondent had issued proceedings vide R.No.2297/V3/V2/2011, dated 23.09.2017 appointing the 3rd respondent as Enquiry Officer and directed him to complete the enquiry within two months from the date of receipt of the order without reference to the Memo dated 22.02.2017. Therefore, aggrieved by the communication of the respondents, the present writ petition is filed.

5. Learned counsel for petitioner had contended that charge memo dated 31.03.2011 issued to the petitioner relate back to the event that has taken place in 2010. Petitioner retired from service on 31.05.2012 and the charge memo dated 31.03.2011 was first communicated to the petitioner on 04.01.2017, which is beyond four years after his retirement. It is further contended that Rule 9(2)(b) of the Rules, 1980, specifically prohibits any authority against the State Government to proceed against retired employee and the charge memo relates to the event, which took place more than 4 years back.

6. Learned counsel for petitioner has specifically referred to Rule 9(2)(b) [Rule 9. Right of Government to withhold or withdraw pension :-