P.Somaraju, v. Government Of Andhra Pradesh
[ 3313 ] HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE TWENTIETH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE PULLA KARTHiK WRIT PETITION NO:41118 OF 2014 Between:
P.Somaraju, S/o.Krishna Murthy, aged 60 Officer, Medak at Sangareddy, R/o.H.No Khammam District.
Retired District Social Welfare , Teachefs Colony, Paloncha, years, 9-2-26 ...PETITIONER AND
1. Government of Andhra Pradesh, represented by its Principal Secretary, Social welfare Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad-SO0 O22.
2. The Commissioner of Social Welfare A.P.Hyderabad.
3. The State of Telangana, represented by its Secretary, Socia! Welfare Depadment, Secretariat, Hyderabad.
4. The Commissioner of Social Wetfare, State of Telangana, Hyderabad.
5. The A.P.Administrative Tribunal, represented by its Registrar, Purani Haveti, Hyderabad.
...RESPONDENTS Petition Under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia pr,aying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a writ order or direction more in the nature of writ of certiorari calling for the order ob the Hon'ble A.P.Adiministrative Tribunal dated2.9.2014 in O.A.No2841 of 2011 and impugned G.O.Rt.No,323 dated 23-4-2011 imposing the punishment of compulsory retirement and quash the same by holding them as illegal, and arbitrary.
!.A.NO:1 OF 2014(WPMP. NO: 51494 OF 2014) .*-t'.
Petition Under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the impugned G.O.Rt.No.323 dated 23-4-2011 pending disposat of the above the writ petition.
Gounsel for the Petitioner : SRI.J.R.MANOHAR RAO Counsel for the Respondent Nos.l to 4 : GP FOR SOCIAI- WELFARE Counsel for the Respondent No.S : -- The Court made the following ORDER
,) AND Writ Petition No. 4L118 of 2Ol4 ORDERZ per Hon'ble SnJustice Abhinand Kumar Shavili) This Writ Petition is filed by the petitioner under Artiile 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a Wit of Certiorai by calling for the records pertaining to the order dated O2.Og.2Ol4 passed in O.A.No.2841 of 2022 by the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad (for short, 'the Tribunal't as well as G.O.Rt.No.323, dated 23.O4.2011, imposing punishment of compulsory retirement, and to quash the same by holding them as illegal and arbitrary.
2.
Heard Mr. J.R. Manohar Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Services-Il, for respondent Nos. L to 4.
3.
Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that petitioner was working as 'District Social Welfare Officer'with respondent Nos.l to 4; during the course of employment, while the petitioner was working as Assistant Director (Legal Cell) in <Er C
'i '.7 AKS,J & PK,J wp_41118_2014 the office of Commissioner of Social Welfare, Hyderabad, it has been alleged by the Disciplinary Authority that petitioner has circulated a file bearing No.Gll837 11994 dated 15.07.1995 recommending not to agree with the District Collector, Visakhapatnam in his letter dated 19.06.1995 for release of rupees one crore subject to condition to keep the said amount in the Court deposit till Special Leave Petition (arising out of O.P.No.21 of 1987 , Pisinikada Land Acquisition case) is disposed of; it was also further alleged by the Disciplinary Authority that petitioner had recommended for release of rupees one crore, causing loss to the exchequer.
4.
Learned counsel for the petitioner further contended that disciptinary proceed.ings were initiated against several officers and an Inquiring Authority was appointed by the Commissioner of Inquiries; the Inquiring Authority, after conducting a detailed inquiry, submitted a report holding thot the charges levelled against the petitioner as "proved"; basing upon the report of the Inquiring Authority, the State imposed a major punishment of "removal from service" vide G.O.Ms.No.44, dated 23.06.2007; aggrieved thereby, petitioner approached the Tribunal ba filing o.A.No.3647 of 2oo7; vide order dated 06. 1 l.2oor , the Tribunal was pleased to allow the o.A. by setting aside the orders of i
l ::3::
AKS,J & PK,J wp_41118_2o14 removal, but however, directed the respondents to impose a major penalty of stoppage of two increments with cumulative effect; challenging the said order, the respondents approached this Court by filing Writ Petition No.1B64O of 2OO8; when no interlocutory orders were granted by this Court in the said writ petition, the respondents approached the Hon'ble Apex Court by filing Special Leave Petition against non-granting of interlocutory orders in Writ Petition No.l 2008; vide order dated 2L.11.2008, the Honble Apex pleased to l I dispose of the Special Leave Petition by giving a direction to the ,'
High Court to dispose of the writ petition within three (03) :
months; consequent upon such direction by the Honble Apex Court, vide order dated O2.O3.2O09, a Division Bench of this Court was pleased to partly allow the Writ Petition No.18640 of 2OO8 by setting aside that portion of the order of the Tribunal wherein it directed the respondents to impose a major penalty of stoppage of two increments with cumulative effect, and remanded the matter back to the Disciplinary Authority to consider the matter afresh within a period of six (06) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order.
5.
Learned counsel for the petitioner further contended that "oftEqrent upon remanding of the matter by the Division
1,".' *;'
,, ..7 ::42:
AKS,J & PK,J wp_4trr8_zor4 Bench to the Disciplinary, Authority, the Disciplinary Authority had once again referred the case of the petitioner to the Vigilance Commissioner; subsequently, the Vigilance Commissioner recommended punishment of "compulsory retirement" on the petitioner; and basing on the recommendations of the Vigilance Commissioner, the State pulsory vide imposed the punishment of "com G.O.Rt.N o.323, dated 23.O4.2O1 l.
, I I 6.
Learned counsel for the petitioner further contended that, as is evident from the above factual matrix, the State has not examined the case of petitioner independently and directly acted upon the recommendations of the Vigilance Commissioner to impose the said punishment of compulsory retirement on the petitioner vide G.O.Rt.No.323, dated 23.04.2OLL; aggrieved thereby, the petitioner approached the Tribunal by filing O.A.No.2841 of 20ll (out of which present Writ Petition arises); vide order dated O2.O9 .2014, the Tribunal was pleased to dismiss the O.A. without appreciating any of the contentions raised by the petitioner; and aggrieved thereby, the present Writ Petition came to be filed by the petitioner.
t
..{..
AKS,J & PK,J wp_41118_2o14 7, Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the Inquiry Officer had mechanically held the charges as "proved" without appreciating the fact that it is not the petitioner who recommended for release of rupees one crore in terms of the order passed by the Court below, and this fact was not properly appreciated by the Tribunal; the Tribunal had mechanically dismissed the above O.A.; and therefore, prayed this Court to pass appropriate orders in the Writ Petition aside the orders of compulsory retirement imposed on petitioner vide to direct the G.O.Rt.No.323, dated 23.04.2011, and also i I respondents to release all pensionarJi benefits to the petitioner by treating him to have retired from service on attaining the age of super€rnnuation instead of "compulsory retirement", and allow the Writ Petition.
8. On the other hand, learned Government Pleader for Services-Il, appearing for respondent Nos. I to.4, contended that consequent upon remanding the matter by the Division Bench of this Court to the Disciplinary Authority, vide 'order dated O2.O3.2O09 passed in Writ Petition No.18640 of 2008, the same was re-examined by the Disciplinary Authority; thereafter, the Vigilance . Commissioner recommended punishment of "compulsory retirement" on the petitioner; therefore, the State \ \* \'
s?.
T '..^ AKS,J & PK,J wp_41118_2O14 had rightly imposed punishment of "compulsory retirement" vide impugned G.O.Rt.No.323, dated 23.O4.2O11, basing on the recommendations of the Vigilance Commissioner; therefore, the Tribunal was justified in dismissing the O.A.; moreover, the punishment of 'compulsory retirement' was imposed on the petitioner when he was aged about fifty-seven (57) years, by which time the petitioner had completdd ,{"*i*rm number of years of service, and therefore, no prejudice would be caused to { the petitioner even if the punishment ofl'compulsory retirement' is imposed on the petitioner as admittedly he would be entitled to futl pensign; and therefore, there are no merits in the Writ Petition and the same is liable to be dismissed. 9.
This Court, having considered the rival submissions made by the parties, is of the considered view that the State had imposed the punishment of 'compulsory retirement' vide G.O.Rt.No.323, dated 23.O4.2O 11, for the proven misconduct in the enquiry by taking a lenient view so as to enable the petitioner to draw pensionary benefits. Therefore, when the State had imposed the punishment of 'compulsory retirement' for the proven misconduct in the enquiry, this court is not inclined to interfere with the order passed by the Tribunal in o'A'No'2841 of 2o11, dated o2.og.2or4, as the Tribunal was ( t I
AKS,J & PK,) wp_4ttr8_zor4 justified in rightly dismissing the o.A. Therefore, the writ Petition is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the same is dismissed. No costs.
10. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending if any in this Writ Petition, shall stand closed.
SD/. C. PRAVEEN KUMAR ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// OFFICER To
1. Two CCs to GP FOR SOCIAL WELFARE, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad. TOUTJ
2. One CC to SRI.J.R.MANOHAR RAO, Advocate [OPUC]
3. Two CD Copies SA GJP "\y r!r..-"-.v.\- "_'
I I HIGH COURT DATED i2010212023 i\,!) STATg -:
i :)o htil Nn
ORDER
o WP.No .41118 of 2014 .)- 1,:;3; t':i"r ..j.
DISMISSING-THE W.P WITHOUT COSTS.
e9 b vy i i i i ^ i IE