Sura Samba Reddy, vs The Under Secretary To Government ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 4480 Tel

              HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN

                 WRIT PETITION No.13726 OF 2010
ORAL ORDER:

      Heard Mr. Srinivasa Rao Madiraju, learned counsel for the

petitioner and Mrs. B. Kavitha Yadav, learned counsel for Central

Government appearing on behalf of respondents.

2. This writ petition is filed to declare the action of respondent

No.1 in cancelling petitioner pension vide letter No.112/3655/84-

FF(HC), dated 07.04.2010 without following due process of law as

illegal and to set aside the same by restoring the petitioner's pension.

3. Perusal of the aforesaid order dated 07.04.2010 would reveal

that respondent No.1 has sanctioned freedom fighter pension to the

petitioner herein and that under Swatantrata Sainik Samman Pension

Scheme (SSSPS), 1980 vide proceedings dated 25.02.2004 based on the

State Government's Verification Report dated 09.09.2002. Thereafter,

according to respondent No.1, re-verification report received from the

State Government dated 20.05.2008, and as per the same, on verification

of the electoral roll of the year 1995, the petitioner's age was found to be

50 years as on 01.01.1995. Therefore, the petitioner was only two (02)

years old at the time of Freedom Struggle during the year 1947-48.

KL,J W.P. No.13726 of 2010

4. In the impugned order, dated 07.04.2010, it is also specifically

mentioned that vide sanction order dated 25.02.2004, the pension was

liable for cancellation / modification without any notice, if it was found

that it was sanctioned on mistaken grounds or false information. It has

since been found that the petitioner had submitted a false document to

support his age, the petitioner was only two (02) years old at the relevant

time, he had not participated in the Hyderabad Liberation Movement, the

petitioner is not entitled for the said pension. Therefore, based on the

said report, respondent No.1 has cancelled the pension sanction order

dated 25.02.2004.

5. Perusal of record would also reveal that this Court vide order

dated 18.06.2010 granted interim suspension of the said impugned order

dated 07.04.2010. Mr. Srinivasa Rao Madiraju, learned counsel for the

petitioner, is not in a position to inform this Court about the compliance

of the interim order by respondent No.1. However, referring to the order

in W.A. No.1091 of 2014, dated 09.07.2015 passed by a Division Bench

of the High Court of Judicature for the States of Telangana and Andhra

Pradesh at Hyderabad, he would submit that the respondents have to

follow guidelines / parameters laid down by the said Division Bench.

KL,J W.P. No.13726 of 2010

6. Perusal of the said judgment would reveal that the petitioner in

W.P. No.2699 of 2009 had filed the said writ petition challenging the

notice issued by respondent No.1 informing the petitioner therein as to

why his pension shall not be cancelled on the same ground. Learned

Single Judge vide order dated 11.04.2014 had allowed the said writ

petition and set aside the impugned order therein with a consequential

direction to respondent No.1 therein to continue to pay freedom fighter

pension in terms of the letter vide Lr.No.112/6197/97-FF(HC)(A), dated

04.11.2003. Feeling aggrieved by the same, the Central Government,

respondent No.1 therein, had filed W.A. No.1091 of 2014, and vide

order dated 09.07.2015, the Division Bench had disposed of the said writ

appeal with the following order:

"1. The petitioner is given a further time of two weeks from today to file explanation/documents, if any, in support of his claim for grant of freedom fighters' pension.

2. The 2nd respondent is directed to afford opportunity of hearing to the petitioner while conducting enquiry into the allegations against the petitioner.

3. If the 2nd respondent intends to rely upon the report or documents in the ongoing enquiry, it is needless to observe that the copies of such documents/reports are made available to the petitioner to meet the requirements of principles of natural justice.

KL,J W.P. No.13726 of 2010

4. The 2nd respondent is directed to positively complete the enquiry initiated through notice dated 02.12.2006 within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

5. It is needless to observe that if the outcome of enquiry turns out in favour of petitioner, the respondents are under obligation to continue the FFP from the date of discontinuation of FFP."

Whereas, in the present case, respondent No.1 had issued impugned

order without issuing any notice. It was issued only basing on the re-

verification report dated 20.05.2008.

7. As discussed above, respondent No.1 had granted pension

sanction order to the petitioner dated 25.02.2004 basing on the State

Government's Verification Report dated 09.09.2002. In the said report,

the petitioner's age was determined basing on the voters list. Whereas,

in the re-verification report dated 20.05.2008, the very same Central

Government has informed that the petitioner was two (02) years old at

the time of Freedom Struggle during the year 1947-48. Admittedly, the

impugned proceedings dated 07.04.2010 are without any notice to the

petitioner. On the other hand, Mrs. B. Kavitha Yadav, learned Counsel

for Central Government would submit that in the sanction order dated

KL,J W.P. No.13726 of 2010

25.02.2004, it is specifically mentioned that the same will be liable for

cancellation / modification without any notice, if it was found that it was

sanctioned on mistaken grounds or false information. Therefore, there is

no need of issuance of any notice.

8. The impugned proceedings are a penal proceedings and

respondent No.1 had cancelled the pension sanction order dated

25.02.2004. Therefore, it shall be preceded by compliance of principles

of natural justice. There is no compliance of principles of natural justice

by respondent No.1. Therefore, on the said ground itself, the impugned

order dated 07.04.2010 issued by respondent No.1 is liable to be set

aside.

9. The present Writ Petition is accordingly allowed setting aside

the impugned proceedings dated 07.04.2010 issued by respondent No.1,

and the matter is remanded back to respondent No.1 with a direction to

issue notice to the petitioner herein, call for explanation and on

consideration of the same only, respondent No.1 shall pass appropriate

orders in accordance with law, more particularly in terms of the

aforesaid SSSPS, 1980. Respondent No.1 shall complete the said

exercise within a period of eight (08) weeks from the date of receipt of a

KL,J W.P. No.13726 of 2010

copy of this order. However, in the circumstances of the case, there shall

be no order as to costs.

As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in the

Writ Petition shall stand closed.

_________________ K. LAKSHMAN, J 8th September, 2022 Note:

Furnish C.C. of order by 13.09.2022.

(B/O.) Mgr