CHIKKAM VIJAY MOHAN Vs. STATE OF A.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Writ Petition is filed seeking a Writ of Prohibition to declare the action of the respondents in initiating and continuing the departmental proceedings against the petitioner vide ROC.Nos.970, 1441, 1528 and 2145/ 2016-Vigilance Vigilance Cell as sanctioned by respondent no.1 vide G.O.Rt.No.62, dtd. 3/3/2022 as illegal, arbitrary and contrary to Rule 9(2)(b) of A.P.Revised Pension Rules, 1980.

(2.) The case of the petitioner, in brief, is that he was appointed as a District Munsif on 1/4/1987, thereafter got promotions and retired as a Selection Grade District Judge on 30/9/2017 on attaining the age of superannuation, while serving as Presiding Officer of the Debts Recovery Tribunal (for short, 'DRT') and later continued as Presiding Officer of DRT. The petitioner was served with copy of G.O.Rt.No.246, Law (LA and J, SC.F) Department, dtd. 23/9/2020 to the effect that the full pension sanctioned and was being paid to him is made as provisional pension @ 75% of the normal pension with retrospective effect from the date of his retirement and recovered the amount without giving any notice and challenging the said G.O., the petitioner filed writ petition vide W.P.No.18431 of 2022 and the same is pending. On 1/10/2022, a family inmate of the petitioner, received through post the Statement of Articles of charge issued by respondent no.2- Registrar, Vigilance in ROC.Nos.970, 1441, 1528 and 2145/2016-Vigilance Cell, signed by the Registrar on 19/9/2022 and dispatched on the next day. In the above Statement of Articles of Charge, two charges were made against the petitioner, said to be based on the complaints signed by the complainants on 1/9/2016, as if the petitioner had received amounts during January,2015 notification under first charge and under the second charge on 20/7/2016 and 31/8/2016 when the petitioner addressed letters to the District Collector. As per Sub Rule (6) of Rule-9 of A.P.Revised Pension Rules, 1980 (for short, Rules,1980), Departmental proceedings shall be deemed to be instituted on the date on which the statement of charges is issued to Government servant or pensioner. Therefore, 20/9/2022, on which date the charge memo was sent through Registered Post with Acknowledgment Due, shall be the date on which the departmental proceedings are deemed to have been instituted. Rule 9(2) (b) of A.P.Revised Pension Rules, 1980 envisages that the departmental proceedings shall not be in respect of any event which took place more than four years before institution of Departmental proceedings. Keeping in view the date on which departmental proceedings were instituted being 20/9/2022, the departmental proceedings in respect of the events that took place before 19/9/2018 are barred by time. However, since the charges relate to the events alleged to have occurred during January, 2015 and on 20/7/2016 and 31/8/2016, initiation of departmental proceedings is barred by afflux of time stipulated in Rule 9(2)(b) of the Rules, 1980. Further, the High Court gave vigilance clearance to the petitioner to apply for the post of Presiding Officer, Debt Recovery Tribunal and relieved the petitioner on 20/10/2016 from Judiciary, which establishes that no charges whatsoever were pending against him as on that date. The petitioner filed a petition before the Enquiry Judge raising the issue of limitation and prayed to decide the same as preliminary issue, however, the Enquiry Judge, without deciding the said application, is proceeding with the enquiry holding that the said objection would be enclosed with the enquiry report which would be submitted to the disciplinary authority. It is the further case of the petitioner that when respondent no.2 called back the petitioner from the services of DRT, the petitioner was constrained to file W.P(C) No.569 of 2017 and the Hon'ble Supreme Court was pleased to grant stay of the said proceedings. Subsequently, the said case was disposed of vide order dtd. 5/2/2020 observing that the petitioner cannot be recalled to the State Cadre since he already retired. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, however, observed that respondent no.2 is entitled to continue the disciplinary action they have already initiated. At that point of time, charge memo was not issued and despite the observation of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the respondent no.2 did not issue charge memo till 19/9/2022. Further, W.P(C) No.569 of 2017 was filed by the petitioner questioning the act of High Court in calling the petitioner back from services of DRT and at no point of time the Hon'ble Supreme Court opined to stall the departmental proceedings, however, the Presenting officer in the enquiry is misinterpreting the orders of the Supreme Court dtd. 28/7/2017. The petitioner received a notice on 31/3/2023 from 2nd respondent directing him to appear before the Inquiring Judge on 12/4/2023 and accordingly the petitioner appeared before the Inquiring Judge and appraised the factum of filing written statement and also the preliminary objection regarding limitation. Since the enquiry is proceeded with though they are barred by time as per Rule 9(2)(b) of the A.P.Revised Pension Rules,1980, the petitioner filed this writ petition.

(3.) Respodnent-2 filed counter-affidavit contending that Rule 9(2)(b) of A.P.Revised Pension Rules has no application to the facts of the case. Pursuant to the complaints received against the petitioner, since he was then working as Presiding Officer, Debts Recovery Tribunal, Nagpur; proceedings in Roc.No.6625/2015-B.Spl. dtd. 29/6/2017 were issued recalling him to State Judicial Service in terms of second proviso to Rule 30(e) of the Andhra Pradesh State and Subordinate Services Rules, 1996, directing him to get himself relieved from the present post immediately. Questioning the said proceedings, the petitioner filed Writ Petition (Civil) No.569 of 2017 before the Hon'ble Supreme Court and on 28/7/2017 an interim order granting stay of operation of the proceedings dtd. 29/6/2017 was passed and further the consequential notification dtd. 12/7/2017 issued by respondent no.3 was also stayed and in view of the interim order granted by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, no further action was taken. The petitioner retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation at 60 years on 30/9/2017 and the petitioner continued working as Presiding Officer, Debt Recovery Tribunal, Nagpur. Vacate stay application was filed in W.P.(Civil) No.569 of 2017 to vacate the order dtd. 28/7/2017 and the Hon'ble Supreme Court disposed of the WP(Civil) No.569 of 2017 on 5/2/2020 holding that the petitioner cannot be recalled to the State cadre, since retired, inter alia observing that the respondents shall be entitled to continue the disciplinary action that they have already initiated against the petitioner. As per the orders passed by Administrative Committee of High Court Judges, the registry addressed a letter dtd. 26/5/2020 to Secretary to Government, Law Department intimating that High Court could not take departmental action from 28/7/2017 to 5/2/2020 in view of interim orders of stay granted by Hon'ble Supreme Court and after final orders of Hon'ble Supreme Court, High Court decided to continue the disciplinary proceedings. Thereafter, the Government issued G.O.Rt.No.62, dtd. 3/3/2022 according sanction to initiate disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner. The contention of the petitioner that the departmental proceedings were initiated against him are contrary to Rule 9(2)(b)(2) of the A.P.Revised Pension Rules, 1980 is not tenable and if the period between 28/7/2017 and 5/2/2020 covered by the interim stay granted by Hon'ble Supreme Court is excluded, continuation of legal proceedings is perfectly legal and within the time frame stipulated in Rule 9(2)(b)(2) of A.P.Revised Pension Rules,1980. There are no merits in the writ petition and the same is liable to be dismissed.