Telangana High Court

P. Jhumkilal vs The State Of Telangana on 6 September, 2024

     THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO

         W.P.Nos.25558 of 2019 and 11679 and 11792 of 2020

COMMON ORDER:

Since the issue raised in these writ petitions is one and the

same, these writ petitions are being disposed of by this common

order.

2. W.P.No.25558 of 2019 is filed seeking the following relief:-

"...... to issue a Writ, Order or directions more particularly one in the nature of writ Mandamus, declaring the action of respondent authorities in not considering the case of the petitioner even though he is honourably acquitted and exonerated from all charges in criminal trial on 29/08/2018 and received the judgment to the petitioner on 25/02/2019 from the I Addl. Judicial Magistrate First Class, Warangal, in CC No.202 of 2012 in Crime No.4 of 1995 and also inspite of holding the charges are not proved by the Enquiry Officer for the period 1991-92 to 1993-94 inspite of the facts, under law and APCS (CC &A) Rules, 1991, in continuing of invalid and impermissible orders dt.17.11.2012 and 16.03.2013 sustainability of 1st respondent imposed punishment dt.17.11.2012 and consequent proceedings of the 3rdrespondent dt.16.03.2013 of the petitioner concerned in the case of departmental enquiry and criminal proceedings based on same set of facts charges evidence and witnesses for the same period and same hostel records, even though no evidence against the petitioner to hold guilty, finding to contrary recorded and wrongly proved in departmental proceedings in such case, held, imposed punishment vide

G.O.Rt.No.732, S.W., dt.17/11/2012 of the 1strespondent and proceedings of the 3rd respondent in Rc.No.A1/621/2000- 1(12), dt.16/03/2013 are not sustainable under law, impermissible and against under Rule 21, 22 and 41 of APCS (CC&A) Rule, 1991, unjust, unfair, without jurisdiction and oppressive and consequently set aside the G.O.Rt. No.732, S.W., dt.17/11/2012 and proceedings of the 3rd respondent in Rc.No.A1/621/2000-1(12), dt.16/03/2013 in reopened entire disciplinary case of the petitioner and to direct the respondents to release (i) 5 %(five percent) cut in pension permanently,(ii) repay the recovery amount of Rs.68,736/-(iii) re-fix the pay under revised pay scales from time to time to the petitioner .........".

3. W.P.No.11679 of 2020 is filed seeking the following relief:-

"........... to issue a writ, order or directions more particularly one in the nature of Writ Mandamus, declaring the action of the impugned proceedings G.O.Rt.No.59, S.W., SER.III.1,dated 28.01.2012 of the 1stRespondent and letter in Rc.No. A1/1370/2006, dt.03.03.2012 of the 4threspondent are liable to be setaside by holding the entire procedure adopted by the Respondents 1 to 4 in issuing the present impugned orders dated 28.01.2012 and 03.03.2012 without application of independent mind and passing said orders in obedience of direction of A.P. Vigilance Commission and also not considering the representation dt.16.12.2019 submitted to the 1strespondent is highly illegal, arbitrary, utter violation of principles of natural justice and contrary to various judicial pronouncements and consequently to direct the respondents to release (i) 15 % (fifteen percent) cut in pension permanently for a period of 3 years, and (ii) to repay the recovered amount of Rs.1,29,879/- and Rs.94,728/ to the petitioner and (iii) refix

the pay under revised pay scales from time to time to the petitioner......".

4. W.P.No.11792 of 2020 is filed seeking the following relief:-

"........ to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the impugned proceedings Rc.No.A1/621/2000-11(08), dated 27/01/2011 of the 3rd Respondent by holding the entire procedure adopted by the 3rd Respondent in issuing the present impugned orders dated 27/01/2011 without application of independent mind and passing said orders in obedience of direction of 1st respondent and A.P. Vigilance Commission and not considering my appeals and representation dt.25/09/2019 is highly illegal, arbitrary, utter violation of principles of natural justice and contrary to various judicial pronouncements and set aside the same and consequently direct the respondents to release (i) one Annual Grade Increment with cumulative effect w.e.f. 01/09/2010 (ii) repay the recovery amount of Rs.17, 141/ and (iii) refix the pay under revised pay scales from time to time..........".

5. For the sake of convenience, the facts in W.P.No.25558 of 2019

are discussed hereunder:-

(i) The petitioner was initially appointed as Grade-II Hostel Welfare

Officer, and subsequently, he was promoted to Grade-I, H.W.O and

retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation on

31.10.2010, while working at Govt. S.W. (Boys) Hostel, Balpala,

Warangal District. While so, the Principal Secretary of the Social

Welfare Department, vide G.O.Rt.No.46, dated 03.02.1998, had

issued orders for conducting a special audit in respect of

misappropriation of Government funds and financial irregularities in

all Government Social Welfare Hostels of Warangal District for the

period from 1991-1992 to 1993- 1994.

(ii) Subsequently, the disciplinary proceedings were initiated

against the petitioner vide charge memo dated 22.07.2000 pertaining

to Social Welfare Boys Hostel, Balpala and called for his explanation.

While denying the charges levelled against him, the petitioner

submitted his explanation. Being not satisfied with the said

explanation, the District Collector vide Proceedings dated 30.01.2002,

appointed the Revenue Divisional Officer, Jangaon, as the Enquiry

Officer and the Assistant Social Welfare Officer (ASWO) concerned as

the Presenting Officer under Rule 20 of the CCA Rules. After

conducting a detailed enquiry into the matter, the Enquiry Officer

submitted his report vide proceedings dated 28.10.2006, holding that

the charges levelled against the petitioner are not proved.

(iii) After receipt of the said enquiry report from the Enquiry Officer

by the District Collector, Warangal, the District Collector, Warangal

being disciplinary authority, instead of passing final orders on his

own, had sent the enquiry report to the Principal Secretary, for the

purpose of further action in the matter. The Principal Secretary, in

turn, referred the matter to the Vigilance Commissioner, A.P.,

Hyderabad, who, vide his letter dated 18.07.2006, had issued

instructions to defer with the findings of the Enquiry Officer. Based

on the said instructions, the District Collector, being a disciplinary

authority, vide Memo dated 02.07.2011, had issued a disagreement

notice to the petitioner calling for his explanation. Accordingly, the

petitioner again submitted his explanation on 09.08.2011 with a

request to drop further action in view of categorical findings given by

the Enquiry Officer, holding that the charges levelled against him are

not proved. Without proper appreciation of the petitioner's

explanation and the findings of the Enquiry Officer, at the instance of

the instructions of the Vigilance Commissioner, the Principal

Secretary had imposed the penalty of withholding of 5% pension

permanently besides recovery of Rs.68,736/- and issued

G.O.Rt.No.732 SWD, dated.17.11.2012 and thereafter, the District

Collector, Warangal, issued consequential proceedings in

Rc.No.A1/621/2000-I (12), dated 16.03.2013 and the same was

communicated to the petitioner by the Deputy Director of Social

Welfare, Warangal. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner filed a statutory

appeal before the Commissioner SWAP, Hyderabad, seeking to set

aside the orders dated.17.11.2012 and 16.03.2013, but the

Commissioner/Appellate Authority neither considered his appeal nor

was it rejected till today. Therefore, the petitioner has filed

W.P.No.25558 of 2019 seeking to set aside G.O.Rt.No.732, dated

17.11.2012 and consequential proceedings i.e., Rc.No.A1/621/2000-

I(12), dated 16.03.2013.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the cases of

the petitioners are similarly situated to HWOs of Warangal District

with regard to the same issue pertaining to the years 1991-92 and

1993-94, which were allowed by the then A.P. Administrative

Tribunal in O.A.Nos.8815, 3865, 5832, 6506, 6525, 7194, 7195,

7620 and 9069 of 2012; and pertaining to the year 1991-94 in

O.A.Nos.8851 of 2012 and batch and O.A.No.8700 of 2012 and

O.A.No.8895 of 2012, by setting aside the charge memos/disciplinary

proceedings/impugned G.O.Rt.Nos. of the 1st respondent therein and

consequential proceedings of the 3rd respondent for the inordinate

and unexplained delay by relying on the judgments of the Hon'ble

Apex Court in State of A.P. Vs. N.Radhakrishna 1 and

P.V.MAHADEVAN Vs. M.D.Tamilnadu Housing Board. 2

7. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that

following the said decisions, the Tribunal, by order dated 25.07.2014

directed the respondents therein to pay full pension and retiral

benefits to the applicants along with interest and gratuity as per

Rules.

1998 (4) SCC 154

AIR 2006 SC 207

8. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that the

alleged charges pertain to the years 1991-92 to 1993-94, and the

Enquiry Officer had submitted his report holding that the charges

levelled against the petitioners have not been proved.

9. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that the

main grievance of the petitioners is that the 3rd respondent, being the

disciplinary authority, instead of taking an independent decision,

forwarded the report to the 1st respondent, who in turn referred to the

Vigilance Commissioner, who deferred/disagreed with the findings of

the Enquiry Officer. The disciplinary authority, while disagreeing

with the findings of the Enquiry Officer and coming to a different

conclusion, ought to have given the petitioners an opportunity for a

personal hearing. Further, with regard to the same issue, several

writ petitions were allowed by this Court in W.P.(TR).No.2283 of

2017, W.P.No.32041 of 2014, W.P.No.11821 of 2020, W.P.No.3513 of

2022 and subsequently, the Government has also passed G.Os.

10. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that the

petitioner in W.P.No.11679 of 2020 retired from service on

31.08.2006, the petitioner in W.P.No.25558 of 2019 on 31.10.2010

and the petitioner in W.P.No.11792 of 2020 on 31.01.2011, after

attaining the age of superannuation.

11. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that

similarly situated colleagues/HWOs of Warangal District cases were

considered in O.A.No.8700 of 2012 dated 26.09.2014 and

O.A.No.8895 of 2012, dated 26.06.2016, wherein the Tribunal set

aside the impugned orders therein.

12. This Court allowed W.P.No.11821 of 2020 on 06.01.2023 by

observing as follows :-

10. It is pertinent to mention here that in the case of similarly situated persons, who filed the O.A.No. 6104 of 2O11 and batch, the then Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal by its order dt. 19.10.2012 allowed the said O.As by granting full pension and retirement benefits to the applicants therein with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing of the O.As, other than gratuity and the gratuity amount shall be paid together with interest as per rules. Aggrieved by the said order, the Government filed Writ Petitions vide W.P.No.16263 of 2013 and batch, and the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court on 09.12.2013 decided as follows:

"Accordingly, the order of the Tribunal to the extent of granting interest on the pension and other retiral benefits payable to the respondent/applicants, is set-aside. The petitioners shall release the pension and other retiral benefits payable to the 1st respondent/applicants within a period of three months from the date of receipt of this order. In all other respect:, the order of the Tribunal stand's confirmed."

11. In view of the above discussion and owing to the orders passed by the Hon'ble Division Bench in the case of

similarly situated persons, the present Writ Petition is liable to be allowed.

12. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed by setting aside the impugned order dated O4.O8.2O11 including the disciplinary proceedings. Consequently, the respondents are directed to take necessary action for the release of all retirement benefits including full pension to the petitioner in accordance with law within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the copy of this order."

13. This Court allowed W.P.(TR).No.2283 of 2017 on 19.06.2023 by

observing as follows :-

21. In view of the above judicial pronouncements, if any order is is passed at the instance of the higher authority, without application of independent mind by the disciplinary authority, itself is illegal and the same is unsustainable.

Moreover, there was an inordinate delay for concluding the disciplinary proceedings and this Court had already considered the similar set of facts and circumstances in W.P.No.11821 of 2020 and 3513 of 2020 and allowed these writ petitions.

22. In view of the above having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions made by the learned counsel on either side, this writ petition is allowed by setting aside the G.O.Rt.No.727, dated.16.11.2012 and its consequential proceedings dated.27.04.2013. Consequently, the respondents are directed to take necessary action for the release of all retirement benefits, pending if any, including full pension to the petitioner in accordance with law, within a period of (3) Three months for the date of receipt of a copy of this order."

14. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that

pursuant to the orders passed by this Court in W.P.(TR)No.2283 of

2017 and W.P.No.11821 of 2020, the 1st respondent issued

G.O.Rt.No.32 dated 05.03.2024 and Go.Rt.No.9 dated 24.01.2021

respectively, wherein the Government implemented the said orders

passed by this Court in W.P.(TR)No.2283 of 2017 and W.P.No.11821

of 2020, and accordingly released all the retirement benefits

including full pension to the petitioners therein. Since the cases of

the petitioners are similar to the facts and circumstances of the said

cases and since the issue is identical, appropriate orders be passed in

the writ petitions by setting aside the impugned orders and allow the

writ petitions.