IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SARATH WRIT PETITION (TR) No.491 of 2017 THE 18TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2026 Between:

J.Prakasham.

…Petitioner AND The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, I&CAD Department and others.

…Respondents

ORDER:

Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for services-I appearing for the respondents and perused the entire material on record.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner retired from service as Senior Assistant on 30.06.2006, without any charges. While it being so, the respondent No.3 issued show cause notice on 11.06.2012, for recovery of an amount of Rs.84,224/- from the Pension of the petitioner, basing on the instructions issued by the respondent No.1 vide Memo No.26563/Ser.VII(V&E)A /2005- 19, dated 17.02.2012. In response to the same, the petitioner submitted his explanation stating that the proposed recovery is without contemplating any disciplinary proceedings against the retired employee during in service, or after his service is against the Rules and also it is contrary to Rule 9(2)(b) of the A.P. Revised Pension Rules, 1980. In spite of that, the respondent No.3 issued the impugned orders for recovery of an amount of Rs.84,224/- from the Pension of the petitioner vide Proceedings No.ES/E-5/300, dated 30.03.2013.

3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the Vigilance and Enforcement Department has sent a report No.142/40V&E/E1/05, dated 16.09.2008, to the respondent No.1 after conducting enquiry against the news item that appeared in ‘Vaartha’ daily newspaper under the caption of “Stationery Perita Contingency Nidhulu Swaha” in irrigation circle Warangal. He further submits that in the said report, the Enforcement Department has not proposed any punishment against the petitioner and the name of the petitioner is also not included in the said report. In spite of that, basing on the Memo No.223/F8(2)/2009-1, dated 05.10.2009, issued by the Government, the further action was dropped in respect of M.Laxminarayana, Superintendent, N.Ashirwadam, Superintendent and P.Ravinder Reddy, Senior Assistant, who are retired from services and they proposed to recover the amount from the petitioner through the impugned proceedings. Moreover, the person’s name i.e. figured in the said Vigilance Report, the Government vide G.O.Rt.No.2155, Finance (WA-II) Department, dated 29.04.2010, dropped the further proceedings in the case of K.V.Ramalingeshwar Rao, the then Divisional Accounts Officer (W), I & CAD Division, Mulugu, and without any power and jurisdiction they imposed the punishment to the petitioner, for recovery of amount from the Pension of the petitioner and the same is liable to be set aside as contrary to the Rule 9(2)(b) of the A.P. Revised Pension Rules, 1980 and therefore, requested this Court to allow the writ petition by setting aside the impugned proceedings vide Memo.No.ES/1704S dated 11.06.2012 and further proceedings No.ES/E/300 dated 30.03.2013 issued by the respondent No.3.

4. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Services-I appearing for the respondents, basing on the counter affidavit, submits that the Government issued instructions vide Memo No.26563/Ser.VII(V&E)/A2005-19, dated 17.02.2012, directing to recover the amount from the officers of Irrigation and Finance Department, who involved in the case prorate basis on the following ratio:

I&CAD Circle Office:

I&CAD Department (Divisional Officer)

5. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Services-I

further submits that the amount proposed for recovery from

the Officers of Irrigation Department in the above ratio and it

i