MOHAMMAD ABDUL MOHAIMIN Vs. STATE OF TELANGANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Writ Petition is filed seeking a Writ of Mandamus to declare the action of the Respondents in sanctioning only provisional pension instead of full pension benefits to the petitioner even though no disciplinary proceedings were initiated and no charges have been alleged against the petitioner as on the date of retirement i.e., 30/9/2017 or even till the date of filing of the present writ petition, as illegal and arbitrary and against Rule 9 of Revised Pension Rules 1980 and against the established law and against the orders of this Hon'ble Court in W.P.No.33477 of 2018, dtd. 6/9/2021 and consequently, to direct the Respondents to release the full pension benefits to the petitioner forthwith and pass such other order or orders this Court deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.

(2.) The petitioner was working as a District Transport Officer, Nirmal and retired from the service on attaining the age of superannuation on 30/9/2017. It is submitted that in the Memo of Respondent No.2 dtd. 29/9/2017 no condition was incorporated and there was no reference to pendency of any charges against the petitioner. It is submitted that the petitioner never faced any proceedings nor received any charge memo of any kind till the date of retirement or till the date of filing of the writ petition. It is submitted that the petitioner submitted the pension papers to the Respondent No.2 for sanction of full pension in the month of October, 2017 but vide orders dtd. 15/4/2020 the Respondent No.1 vide G.O.RT.No.179, dtd. 15/4/2020 has sanctioned only 75% of the normal eligible pension from 1/10/2017 withholding the D.C.R.G in full, pending finalization of ACB cases, which were booked but no charges were framed against the petitioner. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that full pension was not sanctioned to the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner's name was mentioned in ACB raids over the officers of the RTO, Khammam. It is submitted that the petitioner was issued a Notice vide Cr.No.16/RCO-ACB-WKH/2014, dtd. 23/12/2015 regarding the ACB surprise check and that the petitioner submitted his reply on 25/1/2016 and thereafter there was no further action. It is further submitted that the petitioner was issued with another notice dtd. 16/12/2016 regarding ACB surprise check and the petitioner has submitted a reply on 12/1/2017 and there was no further action thereafter. Since no disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the petitioner with regard to the above ACB surprise check nor any charges were framed against him in Cr.No.16 inspite of FIRs registered in ACB case, the petitioner submits that he is entitled to full pension. He submits that another employee, who was also implicated in similar case has approached this Court in W.P.No.33477 of 2018, dtd. 6/9/2021 and this Court has directed the Respondents to accord full pension to the petitioner therein. He therefore, seeks similar relief.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner reiterated the averments made in the writ affidavit as stated above and submits that the ACB raid was in respect of 9 persons including the petitioner herein, and in none of the cases, has any charge memo been issued nor Departmental Inquiry initiated till the date of retirement of the petitioner and others. He submits that under Rule 9 of Revised Telangana State Pension Rules, unless and until there are disciplinary or judiciary proceedings pending as contemplated against the pensioner, retirement benefits of such a person cannot be withheld. He therefore, relied upon the judgment of this Court in W.P.No.33477 of 2018, dtd. 6/9/2021, wherein the petitioner therein is also similar to the petitioner herein and the bench has considered the provision of Rule 9(6)2 of Revised Pension Rules to hold that the retirement benefits can be withheld only when the disciplinary or judicial proceedings are pending as on the date of the retirement of the employee. It was held that the departmental proceedings are considered to be pending only where statement of charges are issued to the Government Servants while in service and Judicial Proceedings are considered to be pending if the Magistrate takes cognizance of the criminal proceedings i.e., where a plaint is filed in civil proceeding or charge sheet is filed in criminal proceedings. Therefore, the learned counsel for the petitioner has sought for similar relief by this Court.