M.Ramaswamy vs The State Of Telangana
2023 Latest Caselaw 3363 Tel

     THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE JUVVADI SRIDEVI

            WRIT PETITION No.23108 of 2021

ORDER:

This writ petition is filed seeking to declare the

impugned charge memo in Tribunal Enquiry Case No.642 of

2013 issued by the 3rd respondent for the incident relating to

the year 2011 i.e., after the date of retirement of the

petitioner, contrary to Rule 9 (2) (b) (ii) of A.P. Revised

Pension Rules, 1980, as illegal and arbitrary.

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the

learned Government Pleader for Services appearing for the

respondents.

3. The counsel for the petitioner submits that the

petitioner, who was working as Excise Inspector, retired from

service on 31.07.2019 and that a charge memo was issued to

him on 08.11.2018, which was served on him on 07.02.2019

for the incident pertaining to the year 2011. The counsel for

the petitioner submits that in the similar circumstances, a

Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad

for the State of Telangana and for the State of Andhra

Justice Juvvadi Sridevi WP. No.23108 of 2021

Pradesh, has passed a common order dated 15.11.2018, in

W.P.Nos. 25587, 26311 and 26381 of 2018, by relying on the

judgment in State of U.P. v. Shri Krishna Pandey,

1wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court, while dealing with

initiation of a departmental enquiry against the respondent

therein after his retirement from service, observed that as in

Rule 9 (2) (b) (ii) of the Rules of 1980, Regulation 351-A of the

Civil Services Regulations, which was under consideration,

provided that departmental proceedings, if not instituted

before retirement, shall not be instituted in respect of an

event which took place more than four years before such

institution, as in Rule 9 (6) of the Rules of 1980, the

Explanation to Regulation 351-A provided that departmental

proceedings shall be deemed to have been instituted when

the charges framed against the pensioner were issued to him

or from the date of his being placed under suspension, if

applicable. Ultimately the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that

departmental proceedings must be instituted before lapse of

four years from the date on which the event of misconduct

had taken place.

(1996) 9 SCC 395

Justice Juvvadi Sridevi WP. No.23108 of 2021

4. Admittedly, in this case, the charges pertain to the

period of more than four years prior to the retirement of the

petitioner. Hence, in view of the above circumstances, this

Court opines that the charge memo dated 08.11.2018 is

liable to be quashed.

5. In the result, the writ petition is allowed, quashing the

charge memo dated 08.11.2018 issued against the petitioner.

1st respondent is directed to fix the pension payable to the

petitioner and pay the retirement benefits such as full

pension, retirement gratuity, encashment of Earned Leave

and other benefits to the petitioner together with interest

@ 9% per annum from the date they become due till the date

of payment. There shall be no order as to costs.

Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall

stand closed.

_____________________ JUVVADI SRIDEVI, J

Date: 20.10.2023 lk

Justice Juvvadi Sridevi WP. No.23108 of 2021

THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE JUVVADI SRIDEVI

WRIT PETITION No.23108 OF 2021

Date: 20.10.2023

lk