Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
The Government Of Anhdra Pradesh vs V Badarinath on 4 May, 2022
Bench: Prashant Kumar Mishra, M.Satyanarayana Murthy
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH : AMARAVATI
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA, CHIEF JUSTICE
&
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M. SATYANARAYANA MURTHY
WRIT APPEAL No. 798 of 2021
(Proceedings through physical mode)
The Government of Andhra Pradesh,
Rep.by the Special Chief Secretary,
Revenue (CT) Department,
Secretariat, Velagapudi, Guntur District
and another. ..Appellants
Versus
Dr. V.Badarinath S/o. V.V. Rama Rao,
Aged 63 years, Occ: Retired Govt. Servant,
r/o. S4, Tulasi Mansion, 3/1, Arundelpet,
Opp: Jain Temple, Guntur-522 002. ..Respondent
Counsel for the Appellants : G.P. for Services-I
Counsel for Respondent : Mr. Singam Srinivasa Rao
JUDGMENT (ORAL)
Dt: 04.05.2022
(per Prashant Kumar Mishra, CJ)
Challenge in this writ appeal is to the order dated 18.08.2021 in
W.P. No.20783 of 2020 passed by the learned single Judge quashing the
Departmental proceedings initiated against the respondent/writ
petitioner and setting aside the impugned G.O.Rt.No.734 Revenue
(Vigilance.II) Department dated 09.09.2020 and the consequential
G.O.Rt.No.735 Revenue (Vigilance-II) Department dated 09.09.2020,
while issuing directions for payment of pension and terminal benefits to
the respondent/writ petitioner as indicated therein.
2. On the relevant date i.e., on 09.09.2020, when the impugned
G.O. was issued, the writ petitioner stood retired as Assistant
Commissioner of Commercial Taxes on attaining the age of
superannuation on 31.07.2017. The impugned G.O. informing the writ
petitioner about the grievance of misconduct relates to the incident
which allegedly happened in the year 2008-09 when he was serving as
Commercial Tax Officer, Khairatabad, Hyderabad. The writ petitioner
assailed the validity of the G.Os. on the ground that the same is not
permissible in law in view of Rule 9 (2)(b)(ii) of the Andhra Pradesh
Revised Pension Rules, 1980 (for short "the Rules, 1980"). The learned
single Judge has sustained the argument observing that since the
incident for which the misconduct has been alleged in the impugned
proceedings related to the year 2008-09, it was beyond the period of
limitation as contemplated under Rule 9(2)(b)(ii) of the Rules, 1980.
3. Learned Government Pleader would vehemently argue that the
learned single Judge has failed to apply the provisions contained in Rule
9(2)(a) read with 9(2)(b)(i) of the Rules, 1980, which would clearly
provide that the departmental proceedings shall not be instituted save
with the sanction of the Government. Therefore, unless there was a
sanction from the Government, the enquiry could not have been
instituted. In the instant case, the sanction was issued on 09.09.2020.
Therefore, once Rule 9(2)(b)(i) of the Rules, 1980 has been complied
with, Rule 9(2)(b)(ii) of the Rules, 1980, would not be attracted.
4. The relevant portion of Rule 9(2)(b) of the Rules, 1980, would
make it clear that the Departmental proceedings, if not instituted while
the Government servant was in service, whether before his retirement or
during his re-employment shall not be instituted save with the sanction
of the Government and shall not be in respect of any event which took
place more than four years before such institution.
5. Sub-rule (6) of Rule 9 of the Rules, 1980 is also relevant for
decision making, which is reproduced here under:
"9(6) For the purpose of this rule___
(a) departmental proceedings shall be deemed to be instituted
on the date on which the statement of charges is issued to the
Government servant or pensioner or if the Government servant has been
placed under suspension from an earlier date, on such date; and
(b) Judicial proceedings shall be deemed to be instituted___
(i) in the case of criminal proceedings, on the date on which
the complaint or report of a police officer, of which the Magistrate takes
cognizance, is made; and
(ii) in the case of civil proceedings, on the date the plaint is
presented in the Court."
6. A conjoint reading of Rule 9(2)(b)(i) and (ii) and sub-rule (6) of
Rule 9 of the Rules, 1980 clearly provides that a Departmental enquiry
shall not be instituted after the retirement of the Government servant,
save with the sanction of the Government and shall not be in respect of
any event which has taken place more than four years before the date
of such institution. As per sub-rule (6) of Rule 9 of the Rules, 1980, the
Departmental proceedings shall be deemed to be instituted on the date
on which the statement of charges is issued to the Government servant.
Admittedly, the statement of charges was issued to the writ petitioner
on 09.09.2020. Therefore, the Departmental enquiry could not have
been initiated in respect of an event which took place more than four
years prior to 09.09.2020. The event which gives raise to the
Departmental proceedings admittedly happened in the year 2008-09.
Thus, it was clearly beyond the permissible limit of four years from the
date of institution of the proceedings. Moreover, the issue is covered by
the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of
State of Bihar and others v. Mohd. Idris Ansari reported in 1995
supp (3) SCC 56.
7. In view of the settled legal position, we are not inclined to
interfere with the order passed by the learned single Judge.
8. Accordingly, the writ appeal is dismissed. No costs. Pending
miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.
PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA, CJ M. SATYANARAYANA MURTHY, J
GM
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA, CHIEF JUSTICE
&
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M. SATYANARAYANA MURTHY
WRIT APPEAL No. 798 of 2021
(per Prashant Kumar Mishra, CJ)
Dt: 04.05.2022
GM
