Telangana High Court
S.Krishna vs The State Of Telangana on 21 August, 2024
THE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR JUKANTI
WRIT PETITION No.1960 of 2018
ORDER:
This writ petition is filed seeking to grant the
following relief:
"... to issue an appropriate Writ, Order or
Direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ
of Mandamus to declare the impugned Charge Memo
dated 08.11.2017 in Tribunal Enquiry Case No.481 of
2013 and served on 01.12.2017, issued by the 3rd
respondent herein for the incident related to year of
2011, as illegal, arbitrary, without jurisdiction and in
violation of Rule 9 (2) (b) (ii) of A.P. Revised Pension
Rules, 1980, and contrary to the Full Bench
judgement of this Hon'ble High Court reported in
Sri K. Satyanarayana vs. State of Andhra Pradesh
(AIR 1973 AP 223), and causing prejudice in getting
implementation of the orders passed in W.P.No.20406
of 2017 dated 22.06.2017 for releasing full pension
and Gratuity and set aside the same and consequently
direct the 1st and 2nd respondents to release
petitioner's full pension, gratuity and other retirement
benefits immediately to the petitioner, and pass such
other order or orders may deem fit and proper in the
circumstances of the case."
JAK, J
2. Mr. K. Ramalingeswara Rao, learned counsel for
petitioner, and learned Government Pleader for Services-III
for respondents.
3. Brief facts:
Petitioner worked as Prohibition and Excise Inspector
in Hyderabad and on attaining the age of superannuation
on 30.06.2013, he retired from service. At the time of
retirement, disciplinary proceedings vide Government
Memo No.46427/Vig.V(2)/2012-1 dated 16.01.2013 and
Memo No.52223/Vig.V(1)/2012-1 dated 14.05.2013 were
pending. Except the Memos, there were no other
allegations or charges pending. The said matter was
referred to Tribunal for disciplinary proceedings to conduct
an enquiry on the alleged involvement of the petitioner. An
impugned charge memo in Tribunal Enquiry Case No.481
of 2013 was served on the petitioner on 01.12.2017.
The said charge memo pertains to an alleged incident
which occurred on 13.12.2011. It is the specific case of the
petitioner that after more than four years from the date of
incident, articles of charges were framed and
JAK, J
communicated to the petitioner relating to an incident of
year 2011 which is beyond six/seven years from the date of
incident. Hence, the writ petition.
4. During the course of submissions, learned counsel
for petitioner submitted that the matter in this writ petition
is squarely covered by orders of this Court in
W.P.No.38165 of 2018 dated 07.12.2023 and
W.P.No.10883 of 2018 dated 23.07.2024. It is urged that
similar order for payment of interest @ 9% per annum be
passed in the present writ petition also. It is further
submitted that petitioner was paid all retirement benefits
including gratuity and interest on delayed payment of
retirement benefits is being sought.
5. Heard learned counsel, perused the record.
Proceedings issued to officers in the Excise Department,
what is commonly known as Excise Syndicate Case, were
dealt with by this Court in various writ petitions. This
Court vide order dated 07.12.2023 in W.P.No.38165 of
2018 held as follows:
JAK, J
"8. In a similar issue, a learned Single Judge
of this Court in W.P.No.4845 of 2019 held as
follows:
"A Division Bench of the High Court of
Judicature at Hyderabad for the State of
Telangana and for the State of Andhra
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 1, wherein
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."
09. This Court is not inclined to take a
different view. In view of the above facts,
impugned Charge Memo dated 24.07.2018, is
liable to be quashed.
10. Writ Petition is allowed, quashing the
impugned Charge Memo dated 24.07.2018
issued. The respondents are directed to fix
25% pension payable to the petitioner and pay
the same and gratuity and other retirement
benefits to the petitioner together with interest
@ 9% per annum from the date they become
(1996) 9 SCC 395
JAK, J
due till the date of payment. There shall be no
order as to costs."
6. In the present writ petition, petitioner received all
retirement benefits including gratuity, petitioner is seeking
interest on delayed payment of retirement benefits. In view
of the orders passed in W.P.No.38165 of 2018, dated
07.12.2023, this Court is not inclined to take
a different view and the charge memo dated 08.11.2017
in Tribunal Enquiry Case No.481 of 2013 is hereby
quashed and respondents are directed to pay interest @ 9%
per annum from the date benefits became due till the date
of payment.
7. Accordingly, writ petition is allowed. There shall be
no order as to costs.
Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in this writ
petition shall stand closed.
___________________________
ANIL KUMAR JUKANTI, J
Date:21.08.2024
Note: Registry is directed to annex a copy
of the order dated 07.12.2023 in
W.P.No.38165 of 2018 to this order
B/o.
KH
