THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE PULLA KARTHIK

WRIT PETITION No.14965 OF 2005

O R D E R:

This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the

Constitution of India seeking the following relief:

“…to issue an order or direction more particularly one in the nature

of writ of certiorari to quash the impugned Memo No.DS(Per)/AS(Per)PO (DC)/582-C2/2001-16, dt.3-4-2004 by confirming order Memo No.DS(Per)/AS(Per)PO(DC)/582-C2/2001-19 dt.15-12-2004 passed by the 1^st Respondent without issuance of charge sheet, and not conducting proper enquiry and without supplying of copy of enquiry report to the petitioner and consequential Memo No.DEE/OP/WNO/ADMN U1/D.No.1729 dt.20-6-2005 for recovery of an amount of Rs.59,400/- as illegal, arbitrary unsustainable without application of mind without jurisdiction consequently to direct the respondents not to recover an amount of Rs.59,400/- as alleged by

them and grant all benefits to the petitioner and pass such…”

2. The facts of the case are as follows:

The petitioner was retired from services on 30.04.2002

in the capacity of Accounts Officer. However, on 03.04.2004, the respondents have issued Memo No.DS(Per)/AS(Per) PO(DC)/582-C2/2001-16 imposing punishment of stoppage of two increments with cumulative effect basing on certain allegations arising during the period from 31.10.2000 to 06.12.2000 when the petitioner held additional charge as Assistant Accounts Officer/E.R.O., Gadwal, while serving under respondent No.2. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner preferred appeal and review petition, which were rejected vide

Memos, dated 15.12.2004 and 06.07.2005. Meanwhile, respondent No.2 issued orders dated 20.06.2005 to the Assistant Accounts Officer, Wanaparthy, to recover an amount of Rs.59,400/- from the petitioner’s pension. Therefore, the petitioner is before this Court by way of this Writ Petition.

3. Heard Sri G.Allabakash, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri N.Sreedhar Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for Southern Power Distribution Company of Telangana Limited, appearing for the respondents. Perused the material available on record.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner had no opportunity to get the verification of credit reconciliations for each quarter, as the additional charge period was only from 31.10.2000 to 06.12.2000, and the charges levelled against the petitioner are based solely on assumptions without any relevant basis. The petitioner is no way concerned with the matter and he had held the additional charge for only 37 days. Leaned counsel emphasizes that there is no evidence on record to show that any enquiry was pending against the petitioner as on the date of his retirement i.e., 30.04.2002. Therefore, the initiation of disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner after his retirement is contrary to the Rules. In support of his contentions, learned counsel relied upon the judgment of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh in Ch.Venkataratnam v. Andhra Pradesh Transmission Corporation, Hyderabad and others, 2000 (5) SLR wherein it was held that disciplinary proceedings cannot be initiated or continued after the retirement of an employee unless such proceedings were pending or contemplated as on the date of retirement. Therefore, learned counsel prays this Court to set aside the impugned Memo dated 03.04.2004 and its consequential Memo, dated 15.12.2004.

5. Per contra, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents, contended that the petitioner, though held the additional charge of Assistant Accounts Officer, ERO, Gadwal for only a short period of 37 days from 31.10.2000 to 06.12.2000, he was the Controlling and Supervisory Officer during that time but he failed in his statutory responsibility to prevent misappropriation of funds. It is submitted that the enquiry was initiated based on supervisory lapses in relation to defalcation of amounts and that the petitioner’s explanation dated 07.04.2002 was already on record and that due procedure was followed under Regulation