N. SRISAILAM Vs. GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this writ petition, the petitioner is challenging the order of imposition of penalty of withholding of entire pension and Gratuity permanently of the deceased employee vide G.O.Ms.No.51 Transport, Roads and Buildings (VIG) Department dtd. 24/5/2012 as illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional and also as contrary to the judicial pronouncements to the effect that the departmental enquiry could not have been conducted on the very same set of charges after acquittal of similar charges by the Criminal court and consequently to set aside the same and direct the respondent No.1 to release all the terminal benefits i.e., service pension Death cum retirement Gratuity, encashment of E.L., funeral charges, family pension w.e.f. 7/1/2015 onwards and to pass such other order or orders in the interest of justice.

(2.) Brief facts leading to the filing of the present writ petition are that the petitioner Sri N. Srisailam was initially appointed in A.P.State Electricity Board as a Helper in the year 1970. Thereafter, he claims to have discontinued his employment in the then Electricity Board and got his name registered in the employment exchange and his name was sponsored by the employment exchange for appointment as LDC and he was appointed as LDC with the respondents in the year 1978. It is submitted that subsequently, he was promoted to various posts and ultimately he was working as Deputy Executive Engineer (R&B), NH Sub Division, Sadasivpet, Medak District. When a news item was published in the newspaper that the petitioner was working in the two places i.e., in the A.P.State Electricity Board and also in the Government Service for the past twenty two years. In view of the said report, a criminal case i.e., CC.No.146/2002, was registered against the petitioner before the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Tandur, Rangareddy District and disciplinary proceedings were also initiated against him by the respondent organization. It was alleged that the petitioner was relieved from Sadasivpet and he submitted his joining report before the Executive Engineer (R&B) Division, Siddipet on 9/7/2001, but the petitioner was not allowed to work. It is further submitted that the petitioner submitted his joining report again on 25/7/2001 and obtained an acknowledgement and thereafter, vide proceedings dtd. 16/8/2001, the petitioner was kept under suspension, but he was not paid any subsistence allowance and vide memo dtd. 16/8/2002, it was proposed to hold an enquiry against the petitioner and a charge sheet was served against the petitioner and the petitioner claims to have submitted his written explanation on 23/9/2002 and thereafter, the departmental enquiry was conducted. It is submitted that even before an enquiry was conducted, the Criminal Court vide judgment dtd. 22/9/2005 acquitted him from all charges and the same was brought to the notice of the department, but the departmental enquiry was concluded holding the charges as proved against the petitioner and the Disciplinary authority has imposed the punishment of penalty of withholding of the entire pension and gratuity permanently. The petitioner had attained the age of superannuation on 30/6/2007. It is submitted that the petitioner has made several representations for re-consideration of his case in the light of the acquittal in the Criminal Case and that there was no evidence whatsoever to prove that the petitioner has worked in both departments simultaneously. However, the same was not considered and therefore, the petitioner filed O.A.No.9582 of 2012 before the Tribunal and on abolition of the Tribunal, the same has been transferred to this Court and it is renumbered as W.P.(Tr).No.135 of 2017.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioner was initially appointed as a Helper in the Electricity Department in the year 1970 and thereafter, he was appointed in the Roads and Building Department in 1978 and worked thereunder up to the age of retirement i.e., on 30/6/2007. It is submitted that the allegation that the petitioner worked in two posts for 22 years is absolutely false and baseless. He submitted that the distance between these two places is eighty kilometers and it was humanly impossible for a person to be travelling between those two places and working in dual roles for a period of twenty two years. It is further submitted that all these facts and the evidence produced by the respondents have been considered by the Criminal Court to hold that there was no evidence that the petitioner has worked in both places at the same time for 22 years. It is further submitted that without taking the evidence considered by the Criminal Court into consideration, the disciplinary proceedings have concluded holding that the petitioner is guilty and have imposed the punishment of the penalty of withholding the entire pension and gratuity permanently. It is submitted that even during the course of suspension, the petitioner was never paid the subsistence allowance, which is in violation of Service Rules as well as the principles of natural justice and for this reason also the proceedings are vitiated.