1 RRN,J
Common order W.P.No.14637 & 14638 of 2020
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO
WRIT PETITION Nos. 14637 AND 14638 OF 2020
COMMON ORDER:
These two writ petitions are filed seeking a writ of
mandamus to set-aside the impugned order issued by the 1st
respondent vide G.O.Ms.No.33 Revenue (Vigilance. III)
Department dated 18.03.2020 and G.O Ms. No. 34 Revenue (Vigilance. III) Department dated 18.03.2020 according sanction for conducting departmental proceedings against the petitioners through alleged encroachments relate to the year 2015 and the petitioners have retired from service respectively as being illegal, arbitrary and violative of the provision of Rule 9(2)(b)(ii) of Telangana (Revised) Pension Rules, 1980.
2. Since the issue raised in both the Writ Petitions is the same, both these Writ Petitions are being disposed of by way of this Common Order.
2 RRN,J Common order W.P.No.14637 & 14638 of 2020
3. For convenience, the facts in W.P No.14638 of 2020 are discussed hereunder:
The petitioner was on leave from 04.12.2017 to 18.01.2018 and upon reporting back to duty, he was posted as Superintendent in Karimnagar Collectorate until his retirement. No disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the petitioner during the period of his service. As such, the petitioner was sanctioned full retirement and pensionary benefits vide Pension Payment Order dt.22.05.2018 and the petitioner is drawing full pension in accordance with the rules. Out of the Rule, the Director General (V&E) vide his report dated 06.02.2020 submitted proposals for initiation of action against the petitioner, his predecessor and successor and the 1st respondent accorded sanction for initiating disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner vide G.O Ms No. 34 Revenue (Vigilance. III) Department dated 18.03.2020 with the allegations that the petitioner failed to safeguard valuable Government Naddi Nala land from encroachment.
3 RRN,J Common order W.P.No.14637 & 14638 of 2020
4. Heard Sri V. Ravichandran, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Government Pleader for Services-II, appearing for the respondents.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioners 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..."
6. Referring to the above rule, learned counsel for the petitioners made his submissions quite crisp by contending that the rule is very clear, drawing out the limitation and scope for 4 RRN,J Common order W.P.No.14637 & 14638 of 2020 initiating departmental proceedings (sanction) and the same is not permissible after the lapse of four (4) years from the alleged incident/event and that it has been more than five (5) years as to when the impugned order was passed.
6.1 Learned counsel for the petitioners invited attention 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 petitioners as Tahsildar i.e the alleged incident which is the basis for the complaint pertained to the year 2015. 6.2 Reliance was placed on the judgment passed by a Division Bench of this Hon'ble Court wherein a similar issue fell for consideration in W.P.No. 25320 of 20221 and this Hon'ble Court while allowing the writ petition held 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 1 N. Madhusudhan Rao vs.The Principal District Judge, Karimnagar & Ors.
5 RRN,J Common order W.P.No.14637 & 14638 of 2020 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."
6.3. It is further contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that neither the sanction issued by the 1st respondent nor any charge memo is issued to the petitioners to 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 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."
2
2013 (4) SCC 161
6 RRN,J
Common order W.P.No.14637 & 14638 of 2020
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."
7. 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 persons are occupying valuable Government Naddi Nala land with the support of the petitioners working as Tahsildars along with some other persons and that the petitioners have not taken any strict action despite knowing the illegalities. It is further contended that the issuance of a memorandum of articles of 7 RRN,J Common order W.P.No.14637 & 14638 of 2020 charge is under process and to date, no action against the petitioners has been initiated in any manner and that the petitioners have approached this Hon'ble Court hastily without valid reason and prayed that the writ petition deserves to be dismissed.
8. It is an admitted fact that the petitioners retired from service on 31.08.2018 and have received all retirement benefits and drawing the full pension. It is also an admitted fact that the G.O. i.e the sanction for initiation of departmental proceedings was issued on 18.03.2020 which is after the lapse of 4 years from the date of the alleged incident as against the prescribed limitation for 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 petitioners failed to take action regarding the illegal encroachment during their tenure as Tahsildars respectively in the short period of such tenure. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of U.P vs. Shri 8 RRN,J Common order W.P.No.14637 & 14638 of 2020 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. The decisions relied on by the petitioner in N. Madhusudhan Rao (supra) and Anil Kumar Sarkar (supra) apply to the present case as no charge memo was issued to the petitioners and the alleged incident pertains to more than four years ago which is hit by Rule 9(2)(b)(ii) of the A.P (Revised) Pension Rules, 1980.
9. 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 petitioners are entitled to the relief as sought for, as such, these Writ Petitions are liable to be allowed.
10. The Writ Petitions are accordingly allowed. The impugned orders issued by the 1st respondent vide G.O Ms No. 33 Revenue 3 (1996) 9 SCC 395 9 RRN,J Common order W.P.No.14637 & 14638 of 2020 (Vigilance. III) Department dated 18.03.2020 and G.O Ms No. 34 Revenue (Vigilance. III) Department dated 18.03.2020 against the petitioners respectively are hereby set-aside. 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