M TIRUPATHI RAO Vs. PRINCIPAL DISTRICT JUDGE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this writ petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India, petitioner challenges the proceedings of the respondent, dated 25.9.2009 withholding the pension of the petitioner and deferring it subject to the result in the enquiries pending against him as arbitrary and illegal and for consequential direction to the respondent to settle the retirement benefits and pensionary benefits under Rule 52 of the A.P. Revised Pension Rules, 1980.

(2.) Petitioner joined in the Ministerial Service of Judiciary as Amin on 20.12.1977 and later he was promoted as Lower Division Clerk and on 23.9.1996 he was further promoted as Upper Division Clerk. While working as such in the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Peddapuram, the Presiding Officer addressed a letter to the respondent in November, 2002 with regard to the left over arrears in the branches of the petitioner and further reported that the petitioner had turned up to the office only on 3.12.2002 to take his salary and affixed revenue stamp in the acquittance register and signed on the same but he immediately detached the said stamp and went away without taking his salary which amounts to tampering of records. Basing on that report and after following the due procedure, the disciplinary authority-respondent framed articles of charges against the petitioner vide Dis.No.11160, dated 16.10.2004. The petitioner on receipt of copy of charges submitted his written representation on 29.5.2006 for grant of one month time to recollect the past events to submit his explanation. The respondent rejected the said request and appointed the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Kakinada as enquiry officer to conduct necessary enquiry into the matter. The enquiry officer after conducting the enquiry submitted his report and on receipt of the report, the disciplinary authority-respondent issued a show-cause notice to the petitioner proposing the punishment of compulsory retirement for the proved charges. The petitioner submitted his written representation and considering the same, the disciplinary authority by the impugned order, dated 25.9.2009 imposed the punishment of compulsory retirement from service against the petitioner under Rule 9(vii) of the Andhra Pradesh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules with a condition that the said retirement is subject to the result in other pending enquiries and that he is entitled to pension subject to the results in the pending enquiries only. Questioning the withholding of the pensionary benefits on the ground that the other enquiries are pending, the present writ petition is filed contending that the provisional pension cannot be deferred even on the ground of pendency of any enquiry as per Rule 52 of the Andhra Pradesh Revised Pension Rules, 1980 (for short 'Rules, 1980') and inasmuch as the petitioner has accepted the punishment of compulsory retirement imposed by the impugned proceedings, he is aggrieved only in not settling the retirement benefits for which, he is entitled under law and for grant of the reliefs as claimed in the writ petition.

(3.) Respondent filed a counter affidavit detailing the punishments imposed on the petitioner as per the entries in his service register. It is stated that in view of proved misconduct of the petitioner, the disciplinary authority withheld the pension subject to the results in the various other enquiries pending against the petitioner. A show-cause notice was issued to the petitioner for his dismissal in two different enquiries following the establishment of charges, which read thus: