1 RRN,J
W.P.No.14633 of 2020
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO
WRIT PETITION No. 14633 OF 2020.
ORDER:
This writ petition is filed seeking a writ of mandamus to direct the respondents to sanction and release full retirement and pensionary benefits with an interest of 12% per annum to the petitioner consequent to his retirement from service with effect from 31.03.2020 duly holding the action of the respondents in wrongfully withholding the petitioner's retirement and pensionary benefits and sanctioning provisional pension only vide Lr. No. Pen-I/175/2020 dated 07.08.2020 of the 2nd respondent without any legal or valid justification that too, in the absence of any disciplinary or criminal proceedings, as being illegal, arbitrary and in violation of Articles 14 and 300-A of the Constitution of India.
2. The petitioner worked as Tahsildar, Kothapalli Mandal from 01.09.2018 to 09.08.2019 and subsequently as Tahsildar, Saidapur Mandal and retired from service on 31-03-2020. No 2 RRN,J W.P.No.14633 of 2020 disciplinary proceeding was initiated against the petitioner during his period of service. Upon the petitioner making an application for pension to the 2nd respondent through the 3rd respondent, the 2nd respondent vide Lr.No.Pen-1/175/2020 dated 07.08.2020 proposed to the AG Office for provisional pension to the petitioner i.e 75% of the pension. Upon receiving a copy of the above-said provisional pension recommendation, the petitioner made a representation dated 18.08.2020 requesting the 2nd respondent to sanction full pension and release other benefits arising out of retirement. However, the Director General (V&E) issued a vigilance report dated 06.02.2020 recommending the 1st respondent to accord sanction for initiating disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner and his predecessors upon an enquiry conducted on the complaint dated 17.04.2017 made by the villagers of Rekurthi Village that the predecessors of the petitioner failed to safeguard valuable Government Naddi Nala land from encroachments.
3 RRN,J
W.P.No.14633 of 2020
3. Heard Sri V. Ravichandran, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Government Pleader for Services-II, appearing for the respondents.
4. The counsel for the petitioner has drawn the attention of this Court to Rule 9(2)(b)(ii) of Telangana (Revised) Pension Rules, 1980 and the same is reproduced hereunder:
"9. Right of Government to withhold or withdraw pension:- (2)(b)(ii) The Departmental proceedings, if not instituted while the Government servant was in service, whether before his retirement or during his re-employment:
(i) shall not be instituted save with the sanction of the Government;
(ii) shall not be in respect of any event which took place more than four years before such institution; and..."
5. Referring to the above rule, learned counsel for the petitioner made his submissions quite crisp by contending that the rule is very clear, drawing out the limitation and scope for initiating departmental proceedings (sanction) and the same is not permissible after the lapse of four (4) years from the alleged 4 RRN,J W.P.No.14633 of 2020 incident/event and that it has been more than five (5) years as to when the vigilance report was prepared and submitted. 5.1 Learned counsel for the petitioner invited the attention of this Court to the complaint dated 22.07.2017 and the report of the Director General (V&E) dated 06.02.2020 and contended that the alleged encroachments were much before the appointment of the petitioner's predecessors as Tahsildar i.e the alleged incident which is the basis for the complaint was pertaining to the year 2015. He further contended that no sanction was accorded to initiate disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner and even if a such sanction is accorded, it is against the settled law. The two predecessors of the petitioner also filed writ petitions vide W.P No. 14637 and 14638 of 2020 before this Court seeking a writ of mandamus to set aside the impugned sanctioned orders against them and despite such orders being passed, they are given full pensionary benefits unlike the case of the petitioner. 5.2 Reliance was placed on the judgment passed by a Division Bench of this Hon'ble Court wherein a similar issue fell for 5 RRN,J W.P.No.14633 of 2020 consideration in W.P.No.25320 of 20221 and this Hon'ble Court held while allowing the writ petition as follows:
"This Court has carefully gone through the charge sheet and undisputedly the statutory provisions governing the field do not permit the issuance of a charge sheet in respect of an event which took place more than four years before such institution in the case of a retired Government servant. In the present case, the event took place in the year 1988 and the charge sheet has been issued in the year 2022, meaning thereby, after 34 years of the date of the incident. Therefore, this Court is of the considered opinion that the charge sheet deserves to be quashed and is accordingly quashed."
5.3 It is further contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that neither the sanction issued by the 1st respondent nor any charge memo is issued to the petitioners till date, and on this ground as well, they are liable to be set aside. In support of his contention, reliance was placed on the decision of the Apex 1 N. Madhusudhan Rao vs.The Principal District Judge, Karimnagar & Ors.
6 RRN,J
W.P.No.14633 of 2020
Court in Union of India and Others vs. Anil Kumar Sarkar2 . The relevant portion is as follows:
"19. In Coal India Ltd. v. Saroj Kumar Mishra2 this Court, in AIR para 22, has held that: (SCC p. 632, para 18) "18. A departmental proceeding is ordinarily said to be initiated only when a charge sheet is issued."
20. In Coal India Ltd. v. Ananta Saha3 this Court held as under: (SCC p. 155, para 27) "27. There can be no quarrel with the settled legal proposition that the disciplinary proceedings commence only when a charge sheet is issued to the delinquent employee.
21. We also reiterate that disciplinary proceedings commence only when a charge sheet is issued. The departmental proceeding is normally said to be initiated only when a charge sheet is issued."
6. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondents contended that the facts leading to the issuance of a report by the Director General (V&E) vide report dated 06.02.2020 arose out of the enquiry into the complaint received from the villagers of Rekurthi Village wherein allegations were made that illegal 2 2013 (4) SCC 161 7 RRN,J W.P.No.14633 of 2020 persons are occupying valuable Government Naddi Nala land with the support of the predecessors of the petitioners working as Tahsildars along with some other persons and that the petitioner has not taken any strict action despite knowing the illegalities. It is further contended that the 2nd respondent was justified in proposing a grant of provisional pension i.e 75% of the pension to the petitioner and the issuance of a memorandum of articles of charge is under process and till date, no action against the petitioner has been initiated in any manner and that the petitioner has approached this Hon'ble Court hastily without valid reason and prayed that the writ petition deserves to be dismissed.
7. It is an admitted fact that the petitioner retired from service on 31.03.2020. It is also undisputed fact that the vigilance report issued by the Director General (V&E) is after the lapse of 4 years from the date of the alleged incident as against the prescribed limitation for the initiation of departmental proceedings. The respondents were mute regarding this aspect and have in no way convinced this court otherwise and have only stressed that the petitioner failed to take action regarding the illegal encroachment 8 RRN,J W.P.No.14633 of 2020 during his predecessors' tenure as Tahsildars in the short period of such tenure. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of U.P vs. Shri Krishna Pandey3 while dealing with a case involving the initiation of a departmental enquiry against the respondent therein after his retirement from service held that departmental proceedings must be instituted before the lapse of four years from the date on which the event of misconduct had taken place. Further, the predecessors of the petitioner who also filed writ petitions regarding the same cause of action were being paid full pensionary benefits despite the sanction of Disciplinary Proceedings being accorded which makes room for the thought that the impugned provisional pension for 75% to the petitioner is not maintainable for this reason alone amongst other grounds also. The decisions relied on by the petitioner in N. Madhusudhan Rao (supra) and Anil Kumar Sarkar (supra) are applicable to the present case as no charge memo was issued to the petitioner and the alleged incident pertains to more than four 3 (1996) 9 SCC 395 9 RRN,J W.P.No.14633 of 2020 years ago which is hit by Rule 9(2)(b)(ii) of the A.P (Revised) Pension Rules, 1980.
8. Having considered the rival contentions made by the parties, settled principle of law and the above findings, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioner is entitled for the relief as sought for, as such, the Writ Petition is liable to be allowed.
9. The writ petition is accordingly allowed. The respondents are hereby directed to pass appropriate orders granting and releasing full pension and retirement benefits to the petitioner within three (03) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. However, there shall be no orders as to costs.
As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous applications, if any, pending in this writ petition, shall stand closed.
_____________________________________ NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO, J Date: 16.12.2022 BDR