The General Manager, ... vs Sri Ch. Sadanandam,Nellore
2022 Latest Caselaw 654 Tel

            HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO
                                AND
           HON'BLE SMT Dr.JUSTICE G.RADHA RANI

              WRIT PETITION No.27538 of 2007

                       Date:15.02.2022

Between:

The General Manager, Rail Nilayam,
SC Railway, Secunderabad & others
                                           .....Petitioners

     And

Sri Ch. Sadanandam S/o.Ch.Danam,
Aged about 63 yrs, Occu : Retd., Chief Booking Supervisor,
D.No.717, Ward No.24, Walkers Road,
Opposite to Telephone Quarters, Batwati Palem,
Nellore (AP)
                                             .....Respondent

The Court made the following:

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO AND HON'BLE SMT Dr.JUSTICE G.RADHA RANI

WRIT PETITION No.27538 of 2007

ORDER: (per Hon'ble Sri Justice P.Naveen Rao)

This writ petition is filed seeking the following relief :

"....Certiorari by calling for the records pertaining to O.A.No.376 of 2006 on the file of the Hon'ble Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad and declare the judgment dated 19.9.2007 as being violative of principles of natural justice and consequently set aside the same and to pass such other further orders..."

2. The respondent was appointed in the service of Railways as

Commercial Clerk on 07.12.1964. He was due for retirement on

attaining the age of superannuation on 30.09.2003. That being so,

on 27.09.2003 he was served a charge memo alleging that "he

being a supervisory official totally failed in his duties in securing of

SPTM stock of Ticket Rolls in lock and key position". Thus, held

responsible for missing of one SPTM ticket Roll Nos.30619500 to

30619999 having 500 tickets and thereby failed to maintain

absolute integrity, devotion to duty and acted in a manner

unbecoming of a Railway Servant.

3. According to the respondent though charge sheet was issued

on 27.09.2003, the Railways took two years to complete the

enquiry, that the report of enquiry was served on him on

27.01.2005 and though he submitted his reply on 01.03.2005, no

final orders were passed for long time. Alleging that on account of

inordinate delay in concluding the disciplinary proceedings the

retirement benefits were not settled, he filed O.A.No.996 of 2005

before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench at

Hyderabad (for short 'the Tribunal'). The Tribunal directed the

respondents to complete the disciplinary proceedings within a

period of three months from the date of communication of the

order and the applicant shall cooperate with the disciplinary

authority in passing final order. If the disciplinary proceedings are

not completed within the time fixed, the disciplinary proceedings

shall be deemed to have been dropped. Before the Tribunal

seeking extension of time specified by the Tribunal in O.A.No.996

of 2005, M.A.No.227 of 2006 was filed and therefore, it cannot be

said that no decision was taken within the time granted. The

Tribunal noticed that the petitioners herein have withdrawn the

said M.A., on 20.07.2006 and the same was accordingly dismissed.

Thus, the order of the Tribunal in O.A.No.996 of 2005 fixing

specific time limit to complete the proceedings with a condition

that non-completion of disciplinary proceedings within the time

mentioned therein, the proceedings should be deemed to have been

dropped has become final.

4. In the meanwhile on 14.07.2006 orders were passed

imposing 10% cut in pension for a period of ten years.

5. Having noticed that no final orders were passed within the

time granted by the Tribunal and once the time fixed by the

Tribunal expired, proceedings are deemed to have been dropped,

the Tribunal directed settlement of all retirement benefits payable

to the respondent in O.A.No.376 of 2006. Petitioners challenge the

said order before this Court.

6. According to learned counsel for the petitioners, the Tribunal

has not considered the fact that on 14.07.2006 final orders were

passed imposing 10% cut in pension and as this order was not

challenged, O.A.No.376 of 2006, was not maintainable and the

Tribunal could not have granted the relief prayed to settle the

retirement benefits.

7. We cannot appreciate this contention of learned counsel for

the petitioners. From the order of Tribunal in O.A.No.996 of 2005,

it is clear that if disciplinary proceedings are not concluded within

three months from the date of communication of order, the

proceedings are deemed to have been dropped.

8. The order of Tribunal was made 21.02.2006. Having realized

that the orders could not have been passed within the time

specified, petitioners filed M.A.No.227 of 2006, but for the reasons

best known, they have withdrawn the M.A, and the same was

dismissed as withdrawn on 20.07.2006. Therefore, by the time

orders were passed on 14.07.2006, the time fixed by the Tribunal

already expired and thus, by then no disciplinary proceedings were

deemed to be pending. Therefore, the question of passing final

orders imposing penalty of 10% cut in pension does not arise.

That being so, we do not see any error in the order of Tribunal

giving direction to settle all the retirement benefits. We see no

merit in the writ petition and it is accordingly, dismissed. Pending

miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.

__________________ P.NAVEEN RAO,J

______________________ Dr. G.RADHA RANI,J

15th February, 2022 Rds