GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH Vs. SMT. M. VEERAMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The State of Andhra Pradesh and the Commissioner of Endowment Department have filed this writ petition feeling aggrieved by the order dated 11.11.2002 in O.A.No.6840 of 1998 on the file of the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal at Hyderabad, whereby it has set aside the order directing recovery of a sum of Rs. 25,023-45 ps. from the pensionary benefits payable to the respondent consequent on the death of her husband, apart from directing that the suspension period from 25.02.1986 to 03.11.1989 to be treated as a period spent on duty for purposes of pay and allowances.

(2.) The facts of this case lie in narrow compass. The husband of the respondent, who was an Executive Officer Grade-I in Temples, faced departmental enquiry. Based on the enquiry report submitted by the Enquiry Officer, petitioner No.2 has issued a show cause notice dated 10.11993, proposing punishment of stoppage of two annual increments with cumulative effect besides recovery of Rs. 25,023-45 ps. Before any final order was passed, the husband of the respondent died. Upon taking note of his death, petitioner No.1 has issued G.O.Rt. No.1659, Revenue (Endts.I) Department, dated 23.10.1996, wherein while holding that the disciplinary action against the deceased shall be treated as abated, it has directed that amount of Rs. 25,023-45 ps. representing the loss caused by the deceased to the Temples be recovered from the death-cum-retirement gratuity (DCRG) and settle all the pensionary benefits to his family. Two years later i.e., on 13.07.1998, petitioner No.1 has issued separate proceedings wherein it has held that suspension of the deceased employee was taken as justified, and that the suspension period shall be regularized as 'not on duty' in terms of sub-rule (7) read with Rule (5) of FR.54-B. It is accordingly rejected the proposal of petitioner No.2 to treat the suspension period as on duty.

(3.) Feeling aggrieved by both these proceedings, the respondent has filed the aforementioned OA. The Tribunal allowed the said OA by holding that consequent upon the death of the employee, the disciplinary proceedings stood abated and consequently recovery of the sum of Rs. 25,023-45 ps., also stands abated. As regards the suspension period, the Tribunal has granted relief to the respondent by directing that the said period shall be treated as the employee on duty by relying upon the decision taken by the State Government in the case of one K.B. Ch. Manikumar, who was also an Executive Officer and who died on 30.05.1995.