Dr. M. Kumara Swamy vs The State Of Telangana
2023 Latest Caselaw 1777 Tel

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

                 W.P. No. 14566 of 2019


Between:
Dr M.Kumara Swamy
                                             ... Petitioner
                            And

The State of Telangana and others
                                           ... Respondents

       JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED ON: 25.04.2023


    THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA

1. Whether Reporters of Local newspapers     :    yes
   may be allowed to see the Judgment?

2. Whether the copies of judgment may be
   marked to Law Reporters/Journals?          :   yes

3. Whether Their Lordships wish to
   see the fair copy of the Judgment?         :   yes



                                     __________________
                                    SUREPALLI NANDA, J
                                                            WP_14566_2019
                              2                                     SN,J




     THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA

                  W.P. No. 14566 of 2019
% 25.04.2023

Between:

# Dr M.Kumara Swamy
                                                  ..... Petitioner
                             And


$ The State of Telangana and others
                                             .....Respondents


< Gist:
> Head Note:



! Senior Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri S.Satyanarayana Rao
^ Counsel for Respondents          : G.P for Services II




? Cases Referred:
1. AIR 1971 SCC 1447
2. 2016 (4) ALD 320 (DB)
3. (2006) 5 SCC 88
4. (1998) 4 SCC 154
5. (2005) 6 SCC 636
                                                         WP_14566_2019
                              3                                  SN,J




       THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA

                  W.P. No. 14566 of 2019
ORDER:

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and

learned Government Pleader Services II.

2. This writ petition is filed to issue a Writ, order or

direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of

Mandamus declaring entire action of the respondents in not

releasing his pension and other retrial benefits, even though

he was allowed to retire from service as on 31.07.2014 on the

untenable ground that the disciplinary proceedings initiated

vide charge memo No.035742/VC.III.V/08-8, dated

06.12.2008 for the issue 2002-2003 of the 2nd respondent

and not concluding said proceeding inspite of submitting two

reports by the enquiry authorities holding that there is no

unspent balance amount available with the petitioner as

alleged in the charge memo is as highly illegal, arbitrary and

the very charge memo dated 06.12.2008 is liable to be set

aside on the ground of inordinate delay/latches in initiation,

as well as in continuation and consequently direct the

respondents to forthwith release his pension and other retrial WP_14566_2019 4 SN,J

benefits by duly accepting his pension papers, by revising his

pay with interest @ 24% p.a. from the date of retirement till

actual payment is made if necessary by concluding the

pending disciplinary proceedings initiated vide charge memo

Rc.No.035742/EC.III/B/08-8, dated 06.12.2008 for the issue

2002-2003.

3) The case of the petitioners, in brief, is as follows:

a) The petitioner was appointed as Civil Asst. Surgeon

during the year 1999, ultimately he was allowed to retire on

31.07.2004 AN on superannuation.

b) While the petitioner was working as Medical Officer, PHC

Rainigudem, charge memo Rc.No.035742/EC-III/V/08-8,

dated 06.12.2008 was issued to the petitioner by the 2nd

respondent alleging that the petitioner did not remit the

balance amount of Rs.1,42,370/- for the year 2002 - 2003

pertaining to the family planning operation. The petitioner

submitted detailed explanation on 31.01.2009 that he was in

charge of the medical camp for sterilization per-formation in

the year 2002- 2003 and that 665 operations were

successfully conducted and that Rs.4,75,630/- was drawn and WP_14566_2019 5 SN,J

Rs.4,74,870/- was paid to the beneficiaries under proper

acknowledgment and remaining Rs.760/- remitted to the

Government through challan dated 28.08.2002 and

08.10.2008.

c) The then Commissioner of Family Welfare constituted

Special Evaluation Team in the year 2009 and visited the

office and checked the relevant records and found that no

such unspent balance is with Dr M.Kumara Swamy, Medical

Officer, PHC Rainigudem to be remitted and submitted report

to the Commissioner of Family Welfare/Director of Health.

However, the Additional Director appointed Spl. Inquiry

Officer and the said Spl. Inquiry Officer after enquiry found

that no such unspent money available to be remitted by the

Medical Officer, TPHC, Raingudem, Warangal.

d) Despite a clear finding from the Special Evaluation

Team including audit party report the respondents utterly

failed to conclude the disciplinary proceedings initiated way

back vide charge memo dated 06.12.2008 and even after 11

years did not release pensionary benefits due to the

petitioner. Therefore, the petitioner is entitled for his retrial

benefits with penal interest @24% from the date of WP_14566_2019 6 SN,J

retirement till actual payment is made as per law. Hence, this

writ petition.

4. The 2nd respondent filed counter and mainly

contended as follows:

On misappropriation of Family Planning Funds for the

years 2002 to 2007, disciplinary action was initiated against

the petitioner and others and that Inquiry Officer was

appointed and after conducting enquiry as per procedure,

report was filed. Therefore, the writ petition is liable to be

dismissed.

PERUSED THE RECORD:

5. Article of charge framed against the petitioner as

per the Charge Memo dated 06.12.2008 vide

Rc.No.035742/VC.III/B/08-8 of the Director of Health,

Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad, reads as under.

"ARTICLE:

That Dr.Kumar Swamy, Medical Officer, PHC, Rainigudem, Warangal District has not remitted the balance amount of Rs.1,42,370/- for the year 2002 to 2003 pertaining to the Family Planning Operations. Thereby he failed to maintain absolute integrity, discipline and devotion to duty and exhibited behavior unbecoming of a WP_14566_2019 7 SN,J

Government Servant and violated Rule-3 of APCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964."

6. The relevant portion of the petitioner's

explanation addressed to the 2nd respondent vide

Rc.No.Spl./FP/2007-09 dated 31.01.2009 reads as

under:

"Thus in all Family Planning operations conducted during the year 2002-2003 (952), break of which is as per Quota-665 and operations undertaken during the special Family Planning drive - 287 as per the orders of the Collector, Warangal. As such, the total number of persons (952) were operated at the normal rate of Government as honorarium and the persons (287) who were operated exclusively from Urban area are paid usually besides special package of 20 Kg Rice, Clothes, Tiffin Boxes. As such, an amount of Rs.4,75,630/- was drawn, an amount of Rs.4,74,870/- paid to the beneficiaries under proper acknowledgements and remaining unspent amount of Rs.760/- was remitted to Government through Challan No.327, Dated: 28.08.2002 and Challan No.57, dated 08.10.2008 and the D.C. Bills were also adjusted without any discrepancies.

In a nut-shell, I beseech your esteemed self to kindly peruse the statements showing the allotment, expenditure and balance remittance minutely and WP_14566_2019 8 SN,J

consider my explanation with dispassionately and objectively under judicious perspective and further action in the matter may please be dropped."

7. D.O.Lr.Rc.No.100/CFW/D&E-8/2008-09, dated

29.08.2009, which is the Evaluation Report, reads as

under:

"(1) Vigilance & Enforcement Department has pointed out that, the Medial Officer PHC Rainigudem has not remitted the unspent balance amount of Rs.1,42,370/- the year 2002-03 with him pertaining to FP operations.

(2) The Team has done detailed calculations basing on the year-wise Performa of the Institution and the expenditure incurred on incentives at the applicable rates the information submitted by the Medical Officer PHC Rainiguem and going by the records it is found that there is no unspent balance amount available with him.

(3) This is arisen because of the DM&HO has shown two different figures (i.e., to the V&E Dept and the other to the SET; which resulted in the minus figures) unreported cases now reported."

WP_14566_2019 9 SN,J

8. Paras 7 and 9 of counter affidavit filed by the 2nd

respondent read as under:

"7. It is respectfully submitted that perusal of the Inquiry Report reveals the Inquiry Officer has not done the proper inquiry against the (13) Medical Officers including the petitioner and without proper enquiry he has submitted his findings as "charges not proved" and accordingly, the Respondent No.2 i.e., Director of Public Health & Family Welfare has re-appointed the Joint Director (Epid), O/o. Director of Public Health & Family Welfare, TS, Hyderabad as Inquiry Officer and the Chief Accounts Officer, O/o. DPH&FW, TS, Hyderabad has been appointed as Presenting Officer vide order dated 20.01.2019. As such, the Inquiry Report is awaited from the Inquiry Officer against the petitioner and the disciplinary action will be concluded soon after the inquiry report is received from the inquiry officer.

9. It is respectfully submitted that the petitioner who retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation on 31-07-2014 has not submitted his pension papers as informed by 3rd respondent i.e., District Medical and Health Officer, Hanamkonda District vie Rc.No.1318/E1/2022 dated 21.04.2021 addressed to the 2nd respondent."

9. Proceedings Rc.No.35742/VC-A/2008 dated

20.01.2019 of the Director of Public Health and Family WP_14566_2019 10 SN,J

Welfare, TS, Hyderabad, in particular, paras 2 and 3

read as under:

2. On perusal of the inquiry report submitted by the Additional Director (Admn.I), O/o. DPH&FW, TS, Hyderabad (individual-wise) pertaining to the Medical Officers mentioned in the address entry from Sl.No.01 to 12, it is found that the inquiry officer has not conducted the inquiry as per rules in vogue and gave his findings/opinion that the charges framed against them were not proved. The Disciplinary Authority disagreed the findings of the Inquiry Officer. As such, it is decided to conduct the re-inquiry into the charges framed against them. Hence, under Rule-20 (2) of APCS (CCA) Rules, 1991 (Telangana Adaption orders, 2016), the Joint Director (Epidemics), O/o. DPH&FW, TS, Hyderabad has been appointed as Inquiry Officer vide reference 9th cited to conduct the re-inquiry into the charges framed against the Medical Officers at Sl.No.01 to 12 mentioned at address entry."

10. Rule 20 (2) of Andhra Pradesh Civil Services (CCA) Rules, 1991, read as under:

"(2) Whenever the disciplinary authority is of the opinion that there are grounds for inquiring into the truth of any imputation of misconduct or misbehavior against a WP_14566_2019 11 SN,J

Government servant, it may itself inquire into, or appoint under this rule, as the case may be, authority to inquire into the truth thereof.

EXPLANATION:- Where the disciplinary authority itself holds the inquiry, any reference to the inquiring authority shall be construed as a reference to the disciplinary authority.

11. This Court on 14.06.2022 passed orders observing

as under:

"As there is inordinate delay in concluding the disciplinary proceedings there shall be interim direction as prayed for.

The above orders are in force as on date.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION:

12. In the present case, a charge memo was issued to

the petitioner on 06.12.2008 for the issue pertaining to

the year 2002-2003. A bare perusal of the statement

pertaining to D.O.Lr.Rc.No.100/CFW/D&E-8/2008-09,

dated 29.08.2009 which is the Evaluation Report

furnished on the subject issue on evaluation in

Warangal District conducted by Special Evaluation

Team (SET) filed as material document in support of WP_14566_2019 12 SN,J

the present writ petition by the petitioner clearly

indicates the amounts now to be recovered as Nil as

against column PHC Rainigudem and further the last

page of the D.O.Letter Rc.No.100/CFW/D&E-8/2008-

09, dated 29.08.2009 (referred to and extracted above)

clearly indicates that there is a clear finding recorded in

favour of the petitioner in pursuance to the evaluation

conducted by the said Evaluation Team in Warangal

District with regard to allegation of misappropriation of

funds in Family Planning Operations during the period

from 2002-2003 to 2007 to 2008 in Warangal District

clearly observing that there is no unspent balance

amount available with the petitioner.

13. A bare perusal of the contents of proceedings vide

Rc.No.35742/VC-A/2008, dated 20.01.2019 and in

particular para 2 thereunder (referred to and extracted

above) indicates that the Disciplinary Authority

disagreed the finding of the Inquiry Officer, who had

submitted his enquiry report, dated 27.05.2017 and

clearly held that the charges framed against the

petitioner and 11 others were not proved and that it WP_14566_2019 13 SN,J

was decided to conduct re-inquiry into the charges

framed against the petitioner and others invoking Rule-

20(2) of APCS (CCA) Rules, 1991 i.e., (Telangana

Adaption Orders, 2016) and the Joint Director

(Epidemics), Office of DPH&FW, TS, Hyderabad had

been appointed as an Inquiry Officer vide proceedings

issued in January, 2019 to conduct re-enquiry into the

charges framed against the Medical Officers at Sl.No.01

to 13 and the petitioner's name figures at Serial No.2.

14. This Court opines that if the Disciplinary Authority is not

satisfied with the Inquiry conducted or the report submitted

has to come out with its views as to why the said inquiry

report already submitted cannot be acted upon. If that is the

pre-requisite for directing further inquiry under Rule 21(1)

recording all reasons is essential. If a de nova inquiry needs

to be ordered in suppression of the previous inquiry.

Needless to say that reasons are to be given for directing

further inquiry and the reasons should be spelt out for

ordering the fresh inquiry.

                                                               WP_14566_2019
                                    14                                 SN,J

15. A bare perusal of the proceedings dated 20.01.2019 of

the Director of Public Health and Family Welfare, Telangana

State, Hyderabad clearly indicates that no reason is assigned

except stating that the inquiry officer has not conducted the

inquiry as per the rules. Though, Rule-20(2) of APCS (CCA)

Rules, 1991 was adapted for conducting the re-inquiry into

the charges framed against the petitioner and 11 others

admittedly as borne on record, there was no procedure

followed even in arriving at the said decision as per rules.

16. RELEVANT JUDGMENTS:

a) The Apex Court in its Constitution Bench decision

in K.R.Deb v Collector of Central Excise, Shillong

reported in1 AIR 1971 Supreme Court 1447 observed as

under:

"A careful reading of this passage will make it clear that if in a particular case where there has been no proper enquiry because of some serious defect having crept into the enquiry or some important witnesses were not available at the time of the enquiry or were not examined, the disciplinary authority may ask the enquiry officer to record further evidence but that

AIR 1971 SC 1447

WP_14566_2019 15 SN,J

provision would not enable the disciplinary authority to set aside the previous enquiries on the ground that the report of the enquiry officer does not appeal to the disciplinary authority."

b) The Apex Court in the Judgment reported in

(2006) 5 SCC 88 in M.V.Bijlani v Union of India and

others, in particular at paras 16 and 17 observe as

under:

"16. So far as the second charge is concerned, it has not been shown as to what were the duties of the Appellant in terms of the prescribed rules or otherwise. Furthermore, it has not been shown either by the disciplinary authority or the appellate authority as to how and in what manner the maintenance of ACE-8 Register by way of sheets which were found attached to the estimate file were not appropriate so as to arrive at the culpability or otherwise of the Appellant. The appellate authority in its order stated that the Appellant was not required to prepare the ACE-8 Register twice. The Appellant might have prepared another set of register presumably keeping in view the fact that he was asked to account for the same on the basis of the materials placed on records. The Tribunal as also the High Court failed to take into consideration that the disciplinary proceedings were initiated after six years and it continued for a period of seven years and, thus, initiation of the disciplinary proceedings as also continuance thereof after such a long time evidently prejudiced to the delinquent officer.

17. In State of Madhya Pradesh v. Bani Singh & Anr. [(1990) Supp. SCC 738], this Court has clearly held:

WP_14566_2019 16 SN,J

" The irregularities which were the subject matter of the enquiry is said to have taken place between the years 1975-77. It is not the case of the department that they were not aware of the said irregularities, if any, and came to know it only in 1987. According to them even in April 1977 there was doubt about the involvement of the officer in the said irregularities and the investigations were going on since then. If that is so, it is unreasonable to think that they would have taken more than 12 years to initiate the disciplinary proceedings as stated by the Tribunal. There is no satisfactory explanation for the inordinate delay in issuing the charge memo and we are also of the view that it will be unfair to permit the departmental enquiry to be proceeded with at this stage."

c) The Apex Court in the Judgment reported in

(1998) 4 SCC 154 in State of A.P. v N.Radha Kishan, in

particular at para 18 observed as under:

The High Court quashed the memo of charges on the principal ground of delay of five and a half years in serving the memo of charges, for which there was no acceptable explanation. This Court examined the factual position as to how the delay occurred and if Goyal had been prejudiced in any way on account of delay. This Court relied on the Principles laid down in A.r. Antulay vs. R.S. Nayak (1992 (1) SCC 225), and said, that though that case pertained to criminal prosecution the principles enunciated therein were broadly applicable to the pleas of delay in taking the disciplinary proceedings as well. Referring to decision in a.r. Antulay case this Court said:-

"In paragraph 86 of the judgment, this Court mentioned the propositions emerging from the several decisions considered therein and WP_14566_2019 17 SN,J

observed that "ultimately the court has to balance and weigh the several relevant factors - balancing test or balancing process

- and determine in each case whether the right to speedy trial has been denied in a given case." It has also been held that, ordinarily speaking, where the court comes to the conclusion that right to speedy trial of the accused has been infringed, the charges, or the conviction, as the case may be, will be quashed. At the same time, it has been observed that that is not the only course open to the court and that in a given case, the nature of the offence and other circumstances may be such that quashing the proceedings may not be in the interest of justice. In such a case, it has been observed, it is open to the court to make such other appropriate order as it finds just and equitable in the circumstance of the case."

In that case this Court said that it was more appropriate and in interest of justice as well as in the interest of administration that inquiry which has proceeded to a large extent be allowed to be completed. At the same time the Court directed that Goyal should be considered forthwith for promotion without reference to and without taking into consideration the charges or the pendency of the inquiry, if he is found fit for promotion.

d) The Apex Court in the Judgment reported in

(2005) 6 SCC 636 in P.V.Mahadevan v Md T.N. Housing

Board, in particular at paras 11 and 12 observed as

under:

"Under the circumstances, we are of the opinion that allowing the respondent to proceed further with the departmental proceedings at this distance of time will be very prejudicial to the appellant. Keeping a higher WP_14566_2019 18 SN,J

government official under charges of corruption and disputed integrity would cause unbearable mental agony and distress to the officer concerned. The protracted disciplinary enquiry against a government employee should, therefore, be avoided not only in the interests of the government employee but in public interest and also in the interests of inspiring confidence in the minds of the government employees. At this stage, it is necessary to draw the curtain and to put an end to the enquiry. The appellant had already suffered enough and more on account of the disciplinary proceedings. As a matter of fact, the mental agony and sufferings of the appellant due to the protracted disciplinary proceedings would be much more than the punishment. For the mistakes committed by the department in the procedure for initiating the disciplinary proceedings, the appellant should not be made to suffer.

12. We, therefore, have no hesitation to quash the charge memo issued against the appellant. The appeal is allowed. The appellant will be entitled to all the retiral benefits in accordance with law. The retiral benefit shall be disbursed within three months from this date. No costs.

e) The Division Bench of High Court of Judicature,

Telangana and Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in the

Judgment reported in 2016 (4) ALD 320 (DB) in State

of Telangana and others v L.Galanna and another

observed as follows:

"2. In the manner the writ petition is proposed to be disposed of, it is not necessary to refer to the facts in detail. It will suffice to observe that respondent No.1, who was working as Assistant WP_14566_2019 19 SN,J

B.C. Welfare Officer, was subjected to a disciplinary proceeding. A charge memo was issued on 24.10.2003, under which, four charges were framed against respondent No.1. Similar proceedings were initiated against four other employees. Not being satisfied with the explanation, dated 13.12.2003, offered by respondent No.1, an enquiry officer was appointed and an enquiry was held. The enquiry officer submitted his report on 27.12.2004, holding that charge No.1 was proved, charge

were not proved against respondent No.1.

Accordingly, the Tribunal relying upon the judgments of the Supreme Court in State of A.P. vs. N.Radha Krishna[1998]4 SCC 154, M.V.Bijlani vs. Union of India and others[2006) 5 SCC 88 and P.V. Mahadevan vs. M.D., Tamilnadu Housing Board[2005] 6 SCC 636, quashed the disciplinary proceedings against respondent No.1, only on the ground of inordinate and unexplained delay in concluding the disciplinary proceedings, in respect of the alleged misconduct, which related to the years 2002-03.

4. On a careful consideration of the respective submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, we are of the opinion that in the absence of any explanation whatsoever offered by the petitioners for their failure to conclude disciplinary proceedings for a decade, the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court in the abovementioned cases was rightly applied by the Tribunal in quashing the disciplinary proceedings."

WP_14566_2019 20 SN,J

f) The Apex Court in its Judgment dated 01.08.2014 in

Civil Appeal No.7113 of 2014 (arising out of SLP (C)

No.25015 of 2011), in D.D.Tewari (D) through LRs v

Uttar Haryana Bijii Vitran Nigam Ltd and others clearly

observed that pension and gratuity are no longer any bounty

to be distributed by the Government to its employees on their

retirement, but, have become, under the decisions of this

Court, valuable rights and property in their hands and any

culpable delay in settlement and disbursement thereof must

be dealt with the penalty of payment of interest at the current

market rate till actual payment to the employees. The said

legal principle laid down by this Court still holds good in so far

as awarding the interest on the delayed payments to the

appellant is concerned.

17. Taking into consideration the fact that petitioner

already retired on 31.07.2014 and the 2nd respondent,

having issued a Charge Memo dated 06.12.2008 to the

petitioner for an issue pertaining to the year 2002-2003

and not concluding the disciplinary proceedings even as

on date in spite of two reports one by the Special

Evaluation Team and the second one by the Special WP_14566_2019 21 SN,J

Inquiry Officer appointed by the Additional Director i.e.

the inquiry authority, holding that there is no unspent

balance amount available with the petitioner as alleged

in the charge memo, this Court is of the firm opinion

that the petitioner is only being troubled by the

respondents for no rhyme or reason. This Court opines

that there is no justification in issuing the proceedings

dated 20.01.2019 by the Director of Public Health and

Family Welfare, Telangana State, Hyderabad.

18. A bare perusal of contents in G.O.Ms.No.679,

dated 01.11.2008 clearly indicates that it is the

responsibility of the inquiring authority to complete the

inquiry as per the prescribed time and that the

Competent Authority, after receipt of the inquiry report

shall conclude the disciplinary proceedings within six

(6) months of its initiation and in case of abnormal

delay in conducting the disciplinary proceedings, action

shall be initiated against concerned inquiring authority

and further that all the Departments of Secretariat,

Head of Department and District Collectors should

follow the above instructions scrupulously.

                                                          WP_14566_2019
                              22                                  SN,J

19. The main grievance of the petitioner is that the

pension amounts and other retirement benefits are not

released to the petitioner on the untenable ground that

the disciplinary proceedings initiated vide charge memo

Rc.No.035742/VC.III.B/08-8 dated 06.12.2008

pursuant to an issue of the period 2002-2003 of the 2nd

respondent, though, two inquiry reports clearly held in

favour of the petitioner and observed that there was no

unspent money available to be remitted by the medical

officer, TPHC Rainigudem, Warangal. This Court opines in

the present case that though the charge memo is dated

06.12.2008 and the same pertained to issues for the year

2002-2003 and though the disciplinary proceedings are

initiated way back in the year 2008, even as on date, the

disciplinary proceedings have not attained finality and had not

been concluded, the pensionary benefits due to the petitioner

had been delayed inordinately though the petitioner was

allowed to retire on 31.07.2014 and the petitioner is put to

untold hardship by the said action of the respondents.

                                                                WP_14566_2019
                                 23                                     SN,J

20. The counter affidavit filed by the 2nd respondent on

20.06.2022 except stating that Inquiry Report is awaited from

the Inquiry Officer against the petitioner and the disciplinary

action will be concluded soon after the inquiry report is

received from the inquiry officer, it is however, silent and

does not indicate the reasons for not concluding the inquiry

initiated against the petitioner way back in the year 2008.

21. Taking into consideration the above referred facts and

circumstances, in particular the specific pleadings in para 8 of

the petitioner's affidavit that the respondents are not taking

any steps for finalization of pending disciplinary proceedings

and on that ground not acknowledging the petitioner's

pension papers nor releasing the pension and other

retirement benefits, this Court opines that the petitioner had

been victimised. The counter affidavit on the contrary states

at para 9, 10 and 11 of the counter affidavit that the

petitioner though attained superannuation on 31.07.2014 had

not submitted his pension papers and that soon after receipt

of the pension proposal from the petitioner further action will

be taken for sanction of provision pension and that

upon conclusion of the disciplinary proceedings WP_14566_2019 24 SN,J

pending against the petitioner the pension proposal on

receipt from the petitioner will be submitted to the

Accountant General for further action as per petitioners

eligibility.

22. Taking into consideration the aforesaid facts and

circumstances of the case and law laid down by the

Apex Court in the various judgments referred to and

discussed above, the writ petition is allowed as prayed

for, the disciplinary proceedings initiated against the

petitioner vide charge Memo Rc.No.035742/VC.III.B

/08-8, dated 06.12.2008 including the Charge Memo

Rc.No.035742/VC.III.B/08-8, dated 06.12.2008 are set

aside and the respondents are directed to receive the

pension papers of the petitioner and are further

directed to release the petitioner's pension and other

retiral benefits without any further delay as

expeditiously as possible preferably within three (03)

weeks from the date of receipt of copy of the order,

since this Court is of the firm opinion that pension and

other retiral benefits are a legal right of the employee

and the same cannot be stopped or withheld arbitrarily, WP_14566_2019 25 SN,J

without any authority of law. However, there shall be

no order as to costs.

Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand

closed.

_________________ SUREPALLI NANDA, J Date: 25.04.2023 Note : L.R. copy to be marked (B/o)Yvkr