THE HON’ BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA WRIT PETITION No.23338 of 2017

ORDER:

The petitioner was initially appointed as a Police Constable on 09.05.1969 and, after a series of promotions, retired as a Sub-Inspector of Police on 30.04.2008 after rendering over 38 years of service. It is his case that while working at Mahankali Police Station, he was suspended by the 3^rd respondent- Commissioner of Police on 06.05.2000 on allegations of misappropriation of Rs.1,50,000/-, which is the case-property seized in Crime No. 231 of 1997 registered against one S. Chandrasekaran (accused) for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 468, and 471 IPC. With regard to the misappropriation, a case was registered in Crime No.67/2000 against the petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 409 IPC. The Police, after investigation, filed charge sheet before the XI Metropolitan Magistrate, Secunderabad, which was taken on file as C.C.No.1225 of 2000. The trial Court, after due trial, acquitted the petitioner, vide Judgment dated 25.04.2013. However, in the parallel disciplinary proceedings, the Enquiry Officer submitted a report dated 07.03.2012 holding the charge proved against the petitioner, despite non-examination of the main complainant Sri Praveen Dawar. The acquittal judgment of the trial Court attained finality. Nevertheless, based on the enquiry report, the 1^st respondent issued G.O.Ms.No.53 Home (Ser.II) Dept. dated 25.04.2017 imposing the penalty of permanent withholding of 100% pension and gratuity, and ordering recovery of Rs.1,50,000/- by invoking Rule 9 of the Telangana State Revised Pension Rules, 1980. The petitioner contends that the charges in the departmental and criminal proceedings are based on an identical set of facts and evidence, and hence the departmental penalty post-acquittal is unsustainable in law, especially in light of judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in G.M. Tank v. State of Gujarat (2006 AIR SC(W) 2709), and Jasbir Singh v. Punjab and Sind Bank ((2006) 8 Supreme 690), where it was held that punishment cannot survive if charges are identical and the employee is acquitted in the crimianl case.

2. Heard Mr. Aravind Kumar Kata, learned counsel for the petitioner; and learned Government Pleader for Home for the respondents. Perused the record.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner, while making submissions on the lines of writ affidavit, essentially contends that findings of the Enquiry Officer in the departmental enquiry are perverse and not supported by cogent evidence; and that only four out of seven listed witnesses were examined and the testimony of crucial witness was omitted. It is contended that disciplinary action initiated nearly 16 years after the incident and finalized 9 years after retirement, is contrary to settled legal principles on delay in disciplinary proceedings, and violates principles of natural justice; and therefore the impugned order in G.O.Ms.No.53 dated 25.04.2017 imposing the punishment of withholding of 100% pension and gratuity permanently besides recovery of misappropriated amount as illegal, arbitrary, unjust, shockingly disproportionate, and consequently direct the respondents to release his pension, gratuity, and allied benefits forthwith.

4. Learned Government Pleader, based on the counter affidavit filed by respondent No.1, essentially contends that acquittal by the criminal Court does not absolve the petitioner from punishment in Departmental proceedings. Rule 9(1) of the Telangana State Revised Pension Rules, 1980, explicitly empowers the State Government to withhold pension or gratuity permanently or partially if, in any departmental or judicial proceedings, the pensioner is found guilty of grave misconduct or negligence during service. It is stated that on the allegations of misappropriation (failure to deposit) Rs.1,50,000/- which is a case-property in relation to Crime No.231/1997, the Departmental proceedings were initiated under Rule 20 of the Andhra Prades