Lakka Prasad vs State Of Telangana
2024 Latest Caselaw 404 Tel

Telangana High Court

Lakka Prasad vs State Of Telangana on 31 January, 2024

Author: T. Vinod Kumar

Bench: T. Vinod Kumar

     THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE T. VINOD KUMAR


                  I.A. No. 2 of 2021
                        IN/AND
           WRIT PETITION No. 23196 of 2021

ORDER:

This Writ Petition is filed with the following prayer:

"(a) To declare the action of respondent Nos.1 and 2 in not considering the representations dated 24.09.2019, 20.02.2020 and 25.032021 respectively filed by the petitioner for regularization of his suspension period from 01.09.2009 to 04.03.2011 as on duty even after he was acquitted in ACB Case i.e., C.C. No.114 of 2015 dated 03.08.2018 and as illegal, arbitrary and unjustified; and

(b) To consequently direct the respondents to regularize the petitioner's suspension period from 01.09./2009 to 04.03.2011 with all consequential benefits such seniority, promotional benefits etc., in the facts and circumstances of the case."

2. Subsequent to the filing of the counter affidavit on

behalf of respondents and a reply affidavit thereto by the

petitioner, the petitioner has filed I.A. No.2 of 2021 to amend

the main prayer in the Writ Petition with the following prayer:

"(a) To direct the respondents to consider my case for payment of all my retiral benefits i.e, full pension, Death-cum-Retirement Gratuity (DCRG) amount of Rs.12,00,000/- (Rupees Twelve lakhs) and other

consequential benefits, and also to regularize my suspension period which I am entitled as per law without reference to the pendency of the Crl.A. No.565 of 2018 and W.P. No.24222 of 2016 on the file of this Hon'ble Court as per the principles of law laid down by this Hon'ble Court in BV Koteswar Rao v. State of Telangana, Higher Education (VC.I), Department, Hyderabad, rep., by its Principal Secretary and another reported in 2018(3) ALT 91;

and

(b) To declare the action of the respondents in not paying my retiral benefits i.e., full pension, Death- cum-Retirement Gratuity (DCRG) amount of Rs.12,00,000/- (Rupees twelve lakhs) and other consequential benefits etc., and also not regularizing my suspension period which I am entitled as per law even after my acquittal in the Criminal Case i.e., CC No.114 of 2015 by the learned Special Judge for Trial of SPE and ACB Cases, Karimnagar by judgment dated 03.08.2018 and even though I retired from service on attaining superannuation on 31.08.2018 on the ground of pendency of Crl.A. No.565 of 2018 and WP. No.24222 of 2016 on the file of this Hon'ble Court as illegal, arbitrary, unjustified and contrary to the principles of law laid down by this Hon'ble Court in BV Koteswar Rao v. State of Telangana, Higher Education (VC.I), Department, Hyderabad, rep., by its Principal Secretary and another reported in 2018(3) ALT 91; and pass such further or other orders as the Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case."

3. Heard Sri V Ravi Kiran Rao, learned Senior Counsel

appearing for Sri V Rohith, learned Counsel for the petitioner

and learned Government Pleader for Services-I appearing for

the respondents and perused the record.

4. Shorn of unnecessary details, the case of the petitioner

in brief is that he was appointed as Forest Beat Officer in the

year 1984; that while working as Forest Section Officer at

Mudapally Section, Nizamabad Range, Nizamabad Division, a

trap was laid by Anti-Corruption Bureau officials on

01.09.2009 at the instance of his subordinate who had

developed a grudge against the petitioner with regard to

administrative matters; and that the petitioner was placed

under suspension vide SO.No.44/2009/N5/(RC.No.

3950/2009/N5) dated 01.09.2009.

5. It is the further case of the petitioner that pending

investigation in the crime registered by the Anti-Corruption

Bureau officials, the petitioner was reinstated into service vide

State Government memo dated 25.01.2022, without prejudice

to the criminal/disciplinary proceedings; that the Divisional

Forest Officer, Nizamabad SO had reinstated the petitioner into

service by proceedings dated 15.02.2011 and thereafter has

been working as Forest Section Officer, Makloor Social Forestry

Section, Nizamabad Social Forestry Range Division on

05.03.2011; and that the petitioner was under suspension for

a period of 550 days from 05.09.2009 to 04.03.2011.

6. It is the further case of the petitioner that subsequent to

the Anti-Corruption Bureau officials initiating criminal

proceedings against the petitioner under Prevention of

Corruption Act, the respondent authorities have initiated

disciplinary proceedings and after causing enquiry imposed

punishment of withholding 2 increments without cumulative

effect vide G.O.Rt No.11 dated 31.01.2017.

7. Petitioner further contended that in the case registered

by the Anti-Corruption Bureau officials, the authorities after

obtaining sanction from the Government filed charge sheet

before the Special Judge for Trial of SPE and ACB Cases,

Karimnagar. The said case was then numbered as C.C. No.114

of 2015; and that the Court on consideration of the oral and

documentary evidence adduced, held that the petitioner was

not guilty for the offences charged with and acquitted him

under Section 248 (1) of Cr.P.C. by judgment dated

03.08.2018.

8. Petitioner further contends that on attaining the age of

superannuation, he had retired from service on 31.08.2008.

However, the respondent authorities had neither regularized

his suspension nor had granted pensionary and other

retirement benefits which he is entitled legally on the ground

that the ACB authorities filed a Criminal Appeal No.565 of

2019 against the acquittal recorded by the Trial Court in C.C.

No.114 of 2015.

9. It is the further case of the petitioner that mere

pendency of Criminal Appeal would not come in the way of the

respondent authorities regularizing the suspension, by

considering the same as 'on duty' and for payment of full

pension and other benefits which he would otherwise be

entitled to receive on attaining the age of superannuation.

10. Petitioner further contends that in spite of approaching

the respondent authorities and submitting representations

dated 24.09.2019, 28.02.2020, 19.06.2020 and 25.03.2021, no

action is taken for settlement of his claims; and that the

respondent authorities claiming pendency of the Criminal

Appeal have not settled retirement and pensionary benefits

completely and only 75% of the pension is being given; and

that the respondent authorities have also not paid Death-cum-

Retirement Gratuity (DCRG) amount.

11. The petitioner on the basis of the above factual position

contends that the respondent authorities under the pretext of

pendency of Criminal Appeal before the Appellate Court cannot

deny to settle the retirement and pensionary benefits as the

Trial Court had recorded acquittal in favour of the petitioner in

the Calendar Case vide C.C. No.114 of 2015; and that the said

action of the respondent is contrary to the law laid down in the

case of Chief Commissioner of Land Administration, A.P.,

Hyderabad v. R.S. Ramakrishna Rao 1 and B.V. Koteshwar

Rao v. State of Telangana 2.

12. Counter affidavit on behalf of respondents is filed.

13. The respondents by the counter affidavit claim that

departmental disciplinary proceedings were initiated against

the petitioner for not submitting annual property returns for

the years 1984, 1985, 1989, 1993, 1999, 2000, 2005, 2006

and 2007; and since the inquiry report submitted clearly

established that the petitioner did not submit property returns

annually, the disciplinary proceedings were finalized levying a

penalty of "withholding (2) increments without cumulative

effect" vide G.O.Rt.No.11 dated 31.01.2017 on the petitioner.

14. The respondents by the counter affidavit further

contended that the petitioner aggrieved by the award of penalty

filed Appeal dated 28.06.2019 to Government wherein the

respondent authority have submitted their remarks stating

that there is no evidence of submission of annual property

2010 (2) ALD 773 (DB)

2018 (3) ALT 91

returns by the petitioner and he has failed to prove such

submission.

15. It is the further case of the respondents in the counter

affidavit that, though the petitioner was acquitted in the ACB

case, since an Appeal is filed before the Hon'ble High Court

which is pending for adjudication, the petitioner is entitled only

for grant of 75% provisional pension and on disposal of the

Criminal Appeal filed by the Anti-Corruption Bureau against

the acquittal order, the petitioner can claim the eligible

consequential benefits and not before.

16. I have taken note of the submissions advanced by the

Counsel appearing for the parties.

17. At the outset, there is no dispute with regard to the

factual aspects noted above.

18. Before adjudicating the primary pleas raised by the

petitioner, it is beneficial to note that though the petitioner

contended that the authorities failed to consider the name of

the petitioner for promotion to the post of Deputy Range

Officer, it is to be seen that aggrieved by such non-

consideration, the petitioner had initially approached the A.P.

Administrative Tribunal which had granted him the relief.

Challenging the same, the respondents herein had filed a Writ

Petition vide W.P.No.24222 of 2016, which is pending

consideration before this court. Notwithstanding the same, as

pendency of the said Writ Petition has no bearing on the issue

involved in the present writ petition, the same is not being

dealt in detail.

19. Hence, the only issue falling for consideration before

this Court, is as to whether the petitioner is eligible and

entitled to receive retirement and pensionary benefits in full or

would have to await the result of the Criminal Appeal filed by

the Anti-Corruption Bureau against the order of acquittal

recorded by the trial court in C.C. No.114 of 2015.

20. A Division Bench of this Court in the case of R.S.

Ramakrishna Rao (supra) had an occasion to consider the

issue of whether the Appeal filed against the acquittal order

would have to be treated as continuation of criminal

proceeding for the purpose of Rule 52 (1) (C) of the pension

Rules. The relevant observation as under:

"18. As per Rule 52(1)(c) of the Pension Rules, the Government is empowered to withhold gratuity till the final orders are passed either in the departmental or judicial proceedings. Once final orders are passed, there is no provision that empowers the Government to withhold retirement benefits.

19. The final orders, as indicated in sub-rules (b) and (c) of Rule 52 (1) of the Pension Rules, are the orders to be passed by the department upon conclusion of the departmental or judicial proceedings. Once the

departmental proceedings end in favour of delinquent employee, there is no question of agitating the orders of the disciplinary authority by the department itself. Therefore, the final orders are required to be passed for the purpose of payment of retirement benefits.

20. Insofar as the criminal cases are concerned, the department has got a right to file an appeal. But, it cannot be said that the judicial proceedings have not been concluded. Once the criminal Court acquits the accused, it must amount to be the conclusion of the judicial proceedings in the first instance. Therefore, the appeals filed against the acquittal orders cannot be treated as continuation of criminal proceedings. The same view was taken by a Division Bench of Calcutta High Court in State of West Bengal's case (supra), referred to above. Para 9 of the said judgment reads as follows: "The submission of Mr. Chakraborty to the effect that pendency of the appeal against acquittal will amount to continuation of the proceedings cannot be accepted. Continuation of the proceedings must relate to investigation, enquiry or trial, and such investigation, enquiry or trial, if any, have come to an end with the judgment of acquittal. The same being continuing in the instant case, is misconceived, only on the ground that an appeal there against is pending. If the respondent No. 1 is convicted by the Appeal Court for commission of a criminal offence, sub-rule (4) of Rule 3 of the said Rules would be attracted. Keeping in view the fact that different subrules of Rules 3 operate in different fields, we are of the opinion that sub-rule (3) of Rule 3 be held to be operative only in the case namely, when an investigation enquiry or trial remains pending and not or when the employee person is acquitted. The situations obtaining under different sub-rule being absolutely

different, in our opinion, sub-rule (3) of Rule 3 must be given a restrictive interpretation".

21. If the appeal is not in continuation of original criminal proceedings, the order of acquittal is a final order within the ambit of Rule 52 of the Pension Rules, referred to above. After the orders of acquittal passed by the criminal Court, as already stated above, there is no power for the Government to withhold pension or retirement benefits. The said benefits, therefore, are liable to be paid immediately after acquittal order.

22. If the appeal or revision proceedings are in continuation of the criminal proceedings, there will be no end for the litigation and the employees, who have been acquitted honourably, shall not get retirement benefits till conclusion of all appeals, revisions, special leave petitions etc. Appeal against acquittal, not being continuation of original criminal proceedings, Rule 52 as above, will not be available to Government for withholding retirement benefits."

(emphasis supplied)

21. The aforesaid decision of the Division Bench of the

erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh has been followed by a

Single Judge of the combined High Court for the State of

Telangana and the State of Andhra Pradesh in the case of B.V.

Koteswar Rao (supra). The learned Single Judge of the

combined High Court had held as under:

"9. The rule as interpreted by the Division Bench is clear and the decision of the Division Bench holding the field, it is no

more open for the Government to reject request to grant retirement benefits on the very ground that criminal appeal is pending. Even in the counter affidavit no other reason is assigned except referring to pending criminal appeal. There was no application of mind. No discussion on statutory environment and precedent decision operating the field. The attitude and approach of the authorities is highly deprecated. Due to illegal denial of retirement benefits, employee and his family is subjected to suffering and hardship for more than three years.

10. Post retirement, future family needs are planned in advance taking note of retirement benefits employee would get, such as performing marriage of child, securing a home, settlement of debts, etc. The day to day needs of the family of retired employee and medical expenses, which would be more after certain age, are taken care of by monthly pension. Any delay in disbursement of these benefits would have cascading effect. These benefits can be denied only when there is compelling reason supported by statutory provision. Denial cannot be a matter of course. Thus, competent authority should be more careful while dealing claims for settlement of retirement benefits and should apply his mind before taking a decision. He cannot mechanically reject such request and drive him to court. This kind of decisions are choking the Court."

(emphasis supplied)

22. This Court in the case of B.V. Koteswar Rao (supra)

observing as above allowed the Writ Petition and directed the

respondent to release all the retirement benefits within a

period of 6 weeks from the date of receipt of copy of the order

and further held that the petitioner therein is entitled to

interest at the rate of 10% per annum from the date of

acquittal granted by the Criminal Court till the date of payment

as the petitioner was driven to Court due to illegal action of

respondent.

23. The position of law as laid down by the Division Bench

of this Court continues to hold the field. It is not shown to this

Court that the ratio laid down in the decision of the Division

Bench has been altered or deviated or reversed by a Superior

Court. On the other hand, the said decision of the Division

Bench has been followed by a Single Judge of the combined

High Court to hold that in spite of the said decision of the

Division Bench holding the field, the respondent authorities

had illegally withheld and denied retirement and pensionary

benefits to the petitioner therein on the ground of pendency of

criminal appeal. This Court appalled by the said conduct of the

respondent authorities had directed payment of interest at the

rate of 10% per annum on the retirement benefits payable to

the petitioner therein. Thus, by judicial discipline this Court is

bound to follow the ratio laid down in the aforesaid decisions.

24. It is to be noted that the facts of the present case are no

different from the facts in the aforesaid authoritative

pronouncements of this Court. The C.C. No.114 of 2015 having

resulted in acquittal of the petitioner on 03.08.2018 and the

petitioner having retired from service on 31.08.2018, the

respondent authorities ought to have granted retirement

benefits in its entirety to which the petitioner was rightfully

entitled to. However, the respondent authorities chose to deny

the petitioner of the retirement benefits on the pretext of the

Anti-Corruption Bureau filing an Appeal against the order of

acquittal recorded by the Trial Court. The said ground for

denying the payment of retirement benefit in full, is no longer

available to the respondent authorities on account of the

settled position of law as laid down in R.S. Ramakrishna

Rao's case (supra) and B.V. Koteswar Rao's case (supra).

25. Further, it is also curious to note that the Trial Court

did not record the acquittal in favour of the petitioner by

granting him benefit of doubt or preponderance. On the

contrary the conclusion recorded by the Trial Court goes to

show that the complainant/investigating agency had failed to

prove the case against the petitioner and that the complaint on

the basis of which the prosecution has been launched is

motivated.

26. Thus, considered from any angle the action of

respondents in not granting/releasing the retirement and

pensionary benefits in full, in the considered view of this Court

cannot be held as valid for it to be sustained. Rather this Court

is of the view that, the petitioner is entitled for grant of relief

including the relief in the form of payment of interest as

directed by this Court in the case of B.V Koteswar Rao

(supra).

27. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed with the

following direction:

(I) The respondents are directed to release all the

retirement benefits which the petitioner is entitled

to, as expeditiously as possible, within a period of

eight (8) weeks from the date of receipt of copy of

this order; and

(II) The petitioner is also entitled to interest @ 8.5%

per annum (being the rate of interest paid on the

amount in PF account and rate of interest applied

by banks on fixed deposit by senior citizens) on

the total amounts due and payable from the date

of retirement till the date of actual payment.

28. Before parting, it is indispensable to note that despite

the position of law being settled on the above issue, the

respondent authorities have adopted an indifferent and

negligent approach by refusing to take necessary action by

themselves and compelling the petitioner herein to approach

this Court. The said conduct of the respondent authorities, in

the considered view of this Court, requires to be deprecated.

Accordingly, I do so by imposing costs in a sum of Rs. 15,000/-

payable to the petitioner within a period of three (3) weeks from

the date of receipt of this order.

29. Consequently, I.A.No.2 of 2021 is allowed.

30. Miscellaneous petitions pending if any shall stand

closed.

                                          ___________________
Date: 31.01.2024                          T. VINOD KUMAR, J

MRKR