E. Rajender Rao vs State Of Telangana And 2 Others
2022 Latest Caselaw 6860 Tel

                                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

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."

    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

(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