M.A.KHADEER Vs. STATE OF TELANGANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Writ Petition is filed seeking to declare G.O.Rt.No.3237 Finance (ADMN.I VIG) Department issued by the 1st respondent imposing the punishment of 'withholding of 10% pension permanently' and the punishment of 'withholding of 5% cut in pension permanently' vide G.O.Rt.No.50 Finance (Vigilance Cell) Department dtd. 21/1/2023 as illegal, arbitrary and consequently to direct the respondents to drop further action against the petitioner duly considering G.O.Rt.No.44 Finance (VC) Department dtd. 27/1/2022 wherein further action was dropped against the co-delinquent officer.

(2.) Heard Sri Nayakwadi Ramesh, learned counsel for the petitioner, and the learned Government Pleader for Services-I appearing for the respondents.

(3.) It has been contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that while the petitioner was working as Senior Accountant during the period from 1/1/2000 to 1/2/2002, he was served a charge memo dtd. 17/4/2003 alleging that the petitioner, along with three others, was involved in irregular drawal of two medical advance bills pertaining to Sri P. Raja Reddy, Senior Assistant, O/o.District B.C. Welfare Office, Karimnagar District, and Sri V. Narasinga Rao, Junior Assistant, O/o.District B.C. Welfare Office, Karimnagar, without having proper sanction order from the competent authority, for which, the petitioner has submitted his explanation denying the charges. Without considering the same, the authorities have appointed an Enquiry Officer to enquire into the charge and the Enquiry Officer without following the Rules specified under TS Civil Services (CCA) Rules, 1991 (in short 'CCA Rules, 1991), conducted enquiry and submitted his report vide orders, dtd. 17/5/2004, holding that the charge against the petitioner was proved to the extent of one bill of Rs.75,000.00 pertaining to V. Narasinga Rao, Junior Assistant, O/o.District B.C. Welfare Office, Karimnagar. Solely based on the said Enquiry Report, the Disciplinary Authority without looking into the true and correct facts has imposed the punishment of 'stoppage of one increment of pay without cumulative effect for a period of one year' vide proceedings No.K(11)6/21067/2001-2, dtd. 5/12/2004, and the same has become final. Thereafter, the petitioner has retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation on 30/9/2007. While so, after a lapse of four years from the date of imposition of punishment and without there being any appeal or revision preferred by the petitioner, the Government on its own has reviewed the punishment order dtd. 5/12/2004 and again imposed the punishment of withholding of 10% pension permanently under Rule 9 of A.P. Pension Rules, 1980, vide G.O.Rt.No.3237 Finance Department, dtd. 1/8/2008 and the said punishment orders are operated and the petitioner is being paid 90% of pension only. That being so, the respondent authorities issued a show cause notice dtd. 27/1/2022 after a lapse of 13 years of his retirement proposing to impose the penalty of 5% cut in pension in terms of clause (1) of Rule 25 of CCA Rules, 1991, read with Rule 9 of A.P. Pension Rules, 1980, and called for his explanation, for which, the petitioner has submitted a detailed explanation stating that he has already undergone two punishments (1) proceedings No.K(11)6/ 21067/2001-2, dtd. 5/12/2004, and (2) G.O.Rt.No.3237 Finance Department, dtd. 1/8/2008. In fact, the petitioner is undergoing the above two punishments since last 13 years. Therefore, the learned counsel submits that as per the settled law, the delinquent should be punished for one time and he should not be punished for several times for the same issue and the same is untenable and impermissible. It is further contended that though the respondents have imposed the punishment of 10% cut in pension, vide G.O.Rt.No.3237, dtd. 1/8/2008, in respect of the incident took place during the period from 1/1/2000 to 1/2/2002, surprisingly, the third respondent has issued charge memo dtd. 26/5/2007 alleging that during the period from 10/5/1993 to 1/2/2002, he has admitted and forwarded bills, which were submitted by the employees of District B.C. Welfare Office, without prior sanction and without following Rules under G.O.Ms.No.86, dtd. 1/6/1992 and cheques/amounts were issued directly to the claimants instead of issuing cheques in favour of NIMS, without making entries in the Treasury Bill Register, for which, the petitioner has submitted his explanation denying the charge. Without considering the same and solely basing on the enquiry report, the respondent authorities have issued show cause notice proposing 5% cut permanently in the pension, which is not justified. Further, in terms of Rule 4 of CCA Rules, 1991, the Government is competent to revise its order within four years but in the case of petitioner, after lapse of 15 years, the orders were revised by the Government, which is bad in law and on the ground of delay and laches, the impugned order is liable to be set aside. It is further contended that the charge memo dtd. 27/5/2007 and impugned punishment order in G.O.Rt.No.50, dtd. 21/1/2023, were issued in respect of the incident took place during the period 1993 to 2002. Further, the impugned proceedings are vitiated on the ground of delay and laches.