Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Bandlamudi Ravi Chandra vs The State Of Ap on 3 July, 2024
APHC010177082024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI [3487]
WEDNESDAY ,THE THIRD DAY OF JULY
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G.NARENDAR
THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA
WRIT APPEAL NO: 576/2024
Between:
B. Ravi Chandra ...APPELLANT
AND
The State of AP and Others ...RESPONDENT(S)
Counsel for the Appellant:
1. RAVI CHANDRA BANDLAMUDI
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. GP FOR SERVICES II
2
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G. NARENDAR
AND
HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA
WRIT APPEAL No.576 of 2024
JUDGMENT:
(per Hon'ble Sri Justice G. Narendar)
Heard the appellant-in-person and the learned Government
Pleader for Services-II appearing for the respondents.
2. This intra-court appeal is directed against the order dated
24.04.2023 rendered by the learned single Judge dismissing the writ
petition, bearing W.P.No.20360 of 2020, preferred by the appellant
herein, with costs quantified at Rs.5,000/-.
3. It is the case of the appellant that as on the date of his
retirement, no charge was either framed or pending and in that view
of the matter, the subsequent action of withholding the pension, that
too, after seven years of his demitting the office, is wholly illegal.
4. On the other hand, on a query, learned Government Pleader
for Services-II representing the respondents would submit that the
appellant was proceeded against and sanction for prosecution was
also granted on account of his having indulged in embezzlement of
Corporation funds to the tune of more than Rs.90.00 lakhs.
5. Per contra, the appellant would submit that though a criminal
case was registered, as no charges were framed as on the date of
his retirement and since the charges were framed only post his
retirement, the action of the respondents in withholding the pension
is wholly illegal and consequently unsustainable. He would attempt
to place reliance on the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Revised
Pension Rules, 1980, to contend that the order of the learned single
Judge suffers from various infirmities.
6. We have perused the order of the learned single Judge. The
learned single Judge, after thorough analysis of the facts and
circumstances of the case and the attendant provisions of law, has
been pleased to and rightly rejected the writ petition with costs.
Having heard both sides, we find no ground to differ from the views
expressed by the learned single Judge.
7. Accordingly, the Writ Appeal stands rejected. As a sequel,
pending interlocutory applications, if any, shall stand closed. There
shall be no order as to costs.
____________________
JUSTICE G. NARENDAR
_____________________________
JUSTICE KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA
Dt: 03.07.2024
IBL
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G. NARENDAR
AND
HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA
Date: 03.07.2024
IBL
