P. Kondal Rayudu vs The Superintending Engineer
2022 Latest Caselaw 9777 AP

       HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE K. MANMADHA RAO

            WRIT PETITION (AT) No.551 of 2021

ORDER :

This petition is filed under Article 226 of the

Constitution of India for the following relief:-

"...to direct the respondents to release all pensionary benefits such as gratuity commutation of pension leave increments pay fixation under Revised Pay Scales from 1992 to 2014 and pension with interest for delayed payment from the date of his retirement to till the realization of the amounts due to him as per G.O.Ms.No.60 PR and RD. dated 01.10.2016 with all consequential benefits by holding the action of the respondents paying only provisional pension of Rs.2140/ under 1992 PRC though he retired on 30 06 2010 is clearly illegal arbitrary discriminatory and pass such other order or orders......."

2. The case of the petitioner is that initially he was

appointed as Fitter by the Dy.E.E in Rigs Sub division No.VI,

Kadapa. His appointment was ratified by the competent

authority on 3.3.1975 after completion of 2 years of service

by 28.2.977 and was promoted as Pump Mechanic.

Subsequently he was converted as Work Inspector Gr. IV in

the year 1984. While working as Work Inspector, due to ill

health he has applied for medical leave from 1.4.1999 to

31.12.1999 duly enclosing the medical certificate and later

he extended the leave from 1.1.2000 to 30.6.2000. Due to

ill health and as he could not able to attend duties, he

applied for voluntary retirement on 18.9.2009. Since no

action has been taken by the competent authority, the

petitioner made another application on 24.11.2009 and the

same was also forwarded to the Executive Engineer on

18.5.2010. Meanwhile, the petitioner has attained the age

of superannuation by 30.6.2010. In spite of applying for

voluntary retirement, either it has not been accepted or

pensionary benefits have been settled. Surprisingly, the

impugned proceedings dated 28.06.2010 were issued by the

1st respondent terminating the services of the petitioner.

Aggrieved by the same, he approached the A.P.

Administrative Tribunal at Hyderabad by way of filing OA

and the same was allowed setting aside the termination

order as it is totally violation of procedure as stipulated

under Rule 20 of APCCS Rules, 1991. However, with a

embargo the respondents were not precluded to conduct

enquiry or action as per the Revised Pension Rules of rule 9,

if they so desire. Thus, it is clear from the above, the

petitioner is deemed to be in service upto 30.06.2010 i.e.,

the date of his superannuation. Though the petitioner has

submitted his pension papers through proper channel and

since the enquiry is pending the Government has issued

Memo No.14027/E.11/2011-3 dated 24.05.2012 requesting

the Engineer-in-Chief to issue instructions to the

Superintending Engineer for sanction of provisional pension

and other terminal benefits as per G.O.Ms.No.1097, dated

22.06.2000 pending disciplinary proceedings. Accordingly,

the 2nd respondent addressed letter to the 5th respondent for

sanction of provisional pension to the petitioner @

Rs.3350/- but however, the petitioner has been sanctioned

and paid provisional pension only of Rs.2140/- on the basis

of 1992 PRC upto his retirement date i.e., on 30.06.2010,

wherein nearly 4 to 5 PRCs.

While the matter stood thus, as per the judgment of

the Tribunal, the respondents have conducted an enquiry by

issuing G.O.Ms.No.161, dated 24.05.2012 by framing

charges. The Enquiry Officer has submitted his report.

Basing on the same, the respondents have issued show

cause notice. Though the petitioner has submitted his

reply, the Government has not taken a decision.

Subsequently, the 4th respondent issued G.O.Ms.No.60 PR &

RD dated 01.10.2016 imposing a punishment of 10% cut in

pension permanently for his unauthorized absence w.e.f.

01.07.2000. Therefore, questioning the same, the present

writ petition has been filed.

3. Heard Sri M. Ramagopal Rao, learned counsel

appearing for the petitioner learned Government Pleader for

Services-IV appearing for the respondents.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that

while inflicting the punishment of termination, which is a

major punishment against the petitioner, the procedure as

contemplated under Rule 20 of APCS (CC&A) Rules, 1991

was not followed and straight away issued the impugned

proceedings terminating the petitioner from service for his

unauthorized absence, the impugned orders are liable to be

set aside which is in violation of Rule 20 of APCS (CC&A)

Rules, 1991.

The procedure laid down in Rule 20 of the AP Civil Service (CCA Rules) in regard to the imposition of major penalties, need not be followed in certain exceptional cases, as mentioned in rule 25, viz: 11.1.1 When a person is

punished on the ground of conduct which has led to his conviction on a criminal charge.

5. On the other hand, learned Government Pleader

submits that the unauthorized absence of the petitioner was

noticed on 17.6.2010 and the petitioner was due to retire on

30.06.2010 on attaining the age of superannuation and

therefore due to lack of time the procedure as prescribed

was not followed. He vehemently opposed to grant any relief

to the petitioner and requests to pass appropriate orders.

6. During hearing, this Court observed that the

respondents have issued the proceedings imposing major

punishment against the petitioner and aggrieved by the

same, the petitioner has preferred OA No.5112 of 2011

before the A.P. Administrative Tribunal at Hyderabad and

the same was allowed vide order dated 09.02.2012 setting

aside the impugned proceedings. However it was specifically

mentioned that the order does not preclude the respondents

from taking action against the petitioner under Rule 9 of

A.P. Revised Pension Rules, 1980, if they so desire.

7. This Court further observed that though the

petitioner has retired on attaining the age of superannuation

on 30.06.2010, he has been paying only provisional pension

of an amount of Rs.2140/- under the 1992 PRC which was

paid during the year 2015. But without calculating and

fixing his pension under Revised Pay Scales of various PRCs

from 1992 to till 2015 nearly half a dozen PRCs have given

effect, which is highly illegal and unjust. The petitioner

reserves his right to challenge the said G.O.Ms.No.60 dated

01.10.2016 imposing 10% cut of pension permanently as

the said punishment was not issued in a fair manner by

conducting enquiry as per the procedure contemplated

under CCA Rules.

8. In view of the above discussion, this Court

observed that the respondents while imposing a major

punishment of termination against the petitioner vide

impugned proceedings dated 28.06.2010, the procedure as

contemplated under Rule 20 of APCS (CC&A) Rules 1991

was not followed.

9. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of

the case, this Court is of the considered view that directing

the respondents to release all pensionary benefits such as

gratuity, commutation of pension, leave increments pay

fixation etc., under Revised Pay Scales from 1992 to 2014

from the date of his retirement till the date of realization of

the amounts due to him as per G.O.Ms.No.60 PR & RD

dated 01.10.2016 with all consequential benefits. The entire

exercise shall be completed within a period of eight (08)

weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

10. With the above direction, the Writ Petition is

disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.

As a sequel, all the pending miscellaneous

applications shall stand closed.

______________________________ DR. K. MANMADHA RAO, J.

Date :     21 -12-2022
Gvl





      HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE K. MANMADHA RAO




        WRIT PETITION (AT) No.551 of 2021




               Date :   21 .12.2022




Gvl

According to Rule 9 of the Andhra Pradesh Revised

Pension Rules, 1980 the State Government themselves

reserves the right of withholding or withdrawing the pension

or gratuity or both and order recovery from the pension or

gratuity of the whole or part of any pecuniary loss caused to

the Government, if in any Departmental or Judicial

Proceedings the Pensioner is found guilty of grave

misconduct or negligence during the period of his service,

subject to certain other conditions.

that as per rule 12(3)(b) of A.P. State and Subordinate

Service Rules, 1996 that no person shall be eligible for

appointment to a post by promotion of appointment by

transfer unless he possess the academic qualifications and

technical or other qualifications and has passed

departmental and other tests and has passed departmental

and other tests and has satisfactorily completed any course

or training prescribed in the special rules as a prerequisite

qualification for hte post, to which he is to be appointed by

promotion or by transfer. it is also clearly indi