Posthumous challenges to disciplinary penalties against deceased government employees are impermissible; relief may be sought through compassionate allowance under relevant pension rules.

JUDGMENT :

Abhinand Kumar Shavili, J.

Aggrieved by the order, dated 17.08.2023, passed in W.P.No.41411 of 2016 by a learned Single Judge of this Court, the present Writ Appeal is filed.

2. Heard Government Pleader for Services-I appearing for the appellants and Sri Kowturu Pavan Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the respondent.

3. Learned Government Pleader appearing for the appellants had contended that the respondent’s husband viz., Sri Y. Krishna Rao was working as Senior Assistant in the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests. While he was working as Senior Assistant, an ACB trap was laid against him on 30.04.1998, and he retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation on 31.12.2003. The disciplinary proceedings continued against him, as the ACB case was pending. The Additional Special Judge for SPE and ACB cases, Hyderabad vide judgment, dated 24.03.2006 in C.C.No.21 of 1999, convicted and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- for the offence under Section 7 and 13 (i)(d) r/w. Section 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Thereafter, he has preferred Criminal Appeal No.503 of 2006 and the same was dismissed confirming the conviction of the ACB Court vide judgment, dated 15.12.2014. Challenging the same, the respondent’s husband has preferred S.L.P.No.2507 of 2015 before the Honourable Supreme Court and during the pendency of the said S.L.P., respondent’s husband expired on 01.01.2016 and therefore, the Honourable Supreme Court dismissed the said S.L.P as abated on 30.06.2016.

4. Learned Government Pleader for the appellants had further contended that consequent upon the conviction, the State vide G.O.Ms.No.48, dated 07.05.2008 has imposed a punishment of withholding of pension and gratuity in full permanently against respondent’s husband invoking the provision of Rule 9 of the A.P. Revised Pension Rules, 1980 (for short, ‘the Rules’). Learned Government Pleader had further contended that after the demise of respondent’s husband, the respondent has submitted a representation to the appellants on 07.10.2016 and 22.11.2016 respectively, requesting to release the pension and pensionary benefits, taking into consideration that her husband has expired.

5. When the appellants have not passed any orders on the said representations, the respondent has approached this Court by filing W.P.No.41411 of 2016, contending that the punishment of withholding of pension and gratuity in full, permanently, vide G.O.Ms.No.48, dated 07.05.2008, was a cryptic order and contended before the learned Single Judge that the orders of imposing a punishment was erroneous, without giving any valid reasons. The learned Single Judge was pleased to set aside the orders of punishment vide order, dated 17.08.2023 and directed the appellants to consider the representations submitted by the respondent on 07.10.2016 and 22.11.2016, as well as the explanation submitted by respondent’s husband to the Show Cause Notice, dated 22.07.2007 and further directed to pass appropriate orders after giving opportunity to the respondent, however, without taking into account that the conviction of respondent’s husband has become final, as it had been confirmed by the High Court, and that the S.L.P preferred by the respondent’s husband was dismissed as abated, which would mean that the conviction remains in effect. In those circumstances, the question of reconsidering the case of respondent’s husband and his explanation would not arise.

6. Learned Government Pleader had further contended that there cannot be any orders against the dead person, and this fact was not properly appreciated by the learned Single Judge. The learned Single Judge h