V. Devender Rao vs State Of Telangana And 2 Others
2022 Latest Caselaw 6859 Tel

                               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

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

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

(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