Shaik Madhar Saheb v. The State of Te

Heard Sri S.Krishna Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner; Sri Mohammed Imran Khan, learned Additional Advocate General for the State of Telangana appearing for respondent Nos.l to 3 and Sri Aruva Raghuram Mahadev, learned Assistant Government Pleader for the State of Andhra Pradesh appearing for respondent Nos.4 and 5 and perused the record.

#2. The present writ petition is filed with the following prayer: "-......to dssue an appropriate Writ, Order or Direction, more particularlg one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the Charge Memo and Article of Clnrges issued bg ttrc Respondent No.l uide G.O.RI.No.4O, dated 17.02.2010 and tle action of tlrc Respondent No.2 & 3 in utithholding the retiral benefits including tle ftnal pension, grafiitg and other beneftts on th.e pretext of i"ssuonce of charge memo a,s arbitrary, ill.egal, unjust and for being uiolatiuo- of Artide 14, 16 and 21 of the Cotslitution of India ond A.P. Ciuil Seruires (Clo.ssification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1991, and. quash./set-a.side the same and ansequentlg o-' i I I i Ii I I I direct the Respondents to rtnafise and release the full pension and all retria) beneJits as due and. admissible to the Petitioner from the date of his retirement i-e-, 3O.O6-2011 t *e date of realisation, induding the anrea:;s of pension uith interest at the rate oJ 18oh per annum from the date of his retirement and pass s:.tch ottar order or orders as this Hon't le Court rnay deem fit and proper in tle circumstances of the case-' I'actual bar:kground (in brle$

#3. The petitioner was initially appointed as lrwer Division Clerk/Junior Assistant in the Civil Supplies Department on

01.09. 1978 and, in the course of his service, was promoted to the posts of rSenior Assistant, Superintendent, Joint Director and ultimately Additional Director. While working as Additional Director in the Ofl-r,:e of the Commissioner of Civil Supplies, Hyderabad, the petitioner ,^/as deputed to the erstwhile Andhra Pradesh State Wakf Board, HyCerabad, and assumed charge as Chief Executive Oflicer (C.E.O) on07.06.2006.

#4. While the petitioner was functioning as C.E.O of the A.P. State Wakf Boa::d, a Charge Memo enclosed with Articles of Charges was issued by the 1st respondent vide G.O.Rt.No.4O dated l7.O2.2OlO proposing to hold an enquiry under Rule 20 of the Andhra Pradesh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, l99l (for short '19()l RulesJ. The substance of the charges, as set out in the Statement of Articles of Charge (G.O.Rt.No.40), is extracted hereunder: ::3:: @VDRNMENT OF ANOUN.E PRAI'TS'T ABSTRACT PSs - Revenue Departmenf - Sn SF.cik Madlnr Sl,eb, tle then Chief Executiue Offtcer, A.P. State Wakf Board, Hgderabad - Departmental hoceedings under Rule-2O of tlrc Andhra Pradesh Ciuil Seruices (Classifrcation" Control and Appeal) Rules, 1991 - Articles of chnrges - Issued. MINORITIES WELFARE (V&C) DEPARTMENT G.O.RI.No.4O Read: Lr.No.Ml/6/Prot/R.R/2OO5, dated:21-O8'20o9 from C-D.O., Dated:17'02-2O1O A.P.S. Wakf Board, Hgderabad. ORDER.. It is proposed to lnld an enqriry against Sn Shaik Madhar Sheb, tte tlrcn Chief Exeantiue Offier, A.P. State Walcf Board, Hgderabad in acurdance withtlrc procedure laid down in Rule 20 of the Andhra Pradesh Ciuil Serutces (Classification, Control ard Appeol) Rules, 1991. 2. The stbstarrce of the imputations of mi.sunduct or misbehavior in respect of which the irqiry is proposed to be leld is set out in the errclosed statement of articles of charges (Annentre'I). A list of documents bg whicla and a list of witnesses bg ttthom, tlrc articles of clwrges proposed to be sustained are also enclosed (Annentre-Il to III). 3. The aboue sard Sn Shnik Ma.dtnr SlEb, the tlen Chief Exeattiue Officer, A.P. State Wakf Board, Hgderabad. is directed to submit utithin 1O dags from tle date of receipt of this order, a written statement of his defene and also to state whettrcr he desires to be heardin person. 4. Tte a.boue sard Sn S|nik Madlnr SlEb, tle then Chief Exeqttiue Offtcer, A.P. State Wakf Board, Hgderabad is informed ttnt an inquiry will be lrcld onlg in respect of those articles of clnrges as are not admitted. He slauld, tlerefore, specifiu.llg admit or deng eacharticle of ctnrge. The aboue said Sn Slwik Mad?wr Sheb, tle then Chief Exeantiue 5. Offrcer, A.P. State Wakf Boord, Hgderabad..is furtlrcr informed that if te does rwt submit his uriften statement of defenre on or before the dale specified in para 3 aboue further action will be processed based on tle material auailable. Attention of Sri Shnik Madhar Sheb, tle tten Chief Executive 6. Officer, A.P. &ate Wakf Board, Hgderabad is inuited to Rule 24 of the Andhra Pradesh Ciuil Servbes (conduct) Rules, 7964, under which no Gouernm.ent Seruant shnll bring or attempt to bring ang political or outside inJluence to bear upon anA superior authoritg to further his interest in respect of matters pertaining to his serui.e under tlrc Couernment- If ang representatbn is receiued on his behnlf from anwther person in respect of any motter dealt within ttrcse proceedings it will be presumed that aboue safd Sn Sl1piik Madhnr Sheb, the ttrcn Chief Exeantiue Oficer, A-P. State Wakf Board Hgderaba.d is aware of such a representation and ttmt it ln"s been made at his instane and action will be taken against him for uioLation of Rute-24 of the Andhra Pradesh Ciuil Seruices (Conduct) Rules, 1964. 4

#7. The receipt of the G.O. flieg be acknourledged- (BY ORDER AND IN THE NAME OF THE GOVERNOR OF ANDHRA PRADESH) LINGARAI PANIGRAHI PRL. SECRETARY TO covERNMENT To Sn Shark Madhar Sheb. the then_Chief Executiue Olficer, A.p. State Wakf ?#,f 2l:;tr:rtftf *r*'-rt,n;;;;;;iff a;;Acquisitio,L request to serue the cops to the'indiuidiat "iapniii ili .;;;;*;;i Copu to: The Ex.Officio Secretaru to Got, Suppti<,s:'Hgde;;;-*' The Chief Exeutiue Olficer, A.p. State Wakf Board, Hgderabaal s 'v wtEmment and Commissioner of auit " / / FORWARDED : : By ORDER/ / SECTION OFFICER ANNE.jXT,RE - I c c SheD. Hudentbad.. Ar.ticlc of Cln"qe: Tttat the the said Sn Shaik Madhar Sheb, uthite Jundiotins as chief Exeartiue officer, A.p.- &;;i;;"io#4 usa.roor4 durins his period of olficiatioa- had ^*"r"a-ir]"#I, rn ,n" oytraot capaat,.es as chief Exeantiue o-Jfie.r.and e;;st"s\:;; ;;kf rrnds utorth of crores of rupees,- -hi"h ;;;;;J'#^i#"ot a os ons WX.o" Basis ctf the Charole: It is slbmitted tLat the land.s in SuruW Nos.231,242,252,2s6,2sg to 269, 280, 2ar, 4so, 4s1, 4s7 to 45s, 4$, iz;: az:;;;lii?i, a.dmeasurtns to an ..rtent of Ac.4zl-ot c,ts of Mahesh;;,i,;;r;, Ransa Redds district betonss to wakf. The .said tana" ,.,niZiioria'iiirxn by one Sri syed Jdmlud.din for the mnintenarr. rfuiiil*-ii**ffiut frospitat situated at c ha<terstn, H aderabart utn:r: ts. bsng i:;";;;;' ffi;;_._rsrami socrar Seruice throush a wakf Deed aatea:za_dt-t gii iia6i.i. *grrr.red. with ,ff*Y4rm*" in Kit;b-ut wakf ""d " in;;;";;;';X;";", i.ssued by the The J,7.mat-e-lslctmi Social Seruice .with-out *e sarlction of te Wakf board. and contrary to Law sotd. an enent- of Ac. t2_i;Z;.] irk r* aboue said. surueg nos.. and haue faitert to 1";*n in"- p"riiia{,.ot tne antaunts reatizct there of to the titarr Boaia. A:;; ;"";;;f# sociat seruice society is o j a ma"g.rl corai;.r-;i # .,ii _o*1 p-p"rtg ana a.s such thea are not empoueid i" iili" in questiorL The s,zid illegal sole transoction wa:--r?:sed bg one Legislator before the House committee for Minorities_ w.wn, -;rh";tl*vilti 'Wf##:W:fr 'z;!t*:;tr\w.{ii# j"*:;ff r: "n, ffiTT:!,{:;:;P"*;:#;."ry:f :trxkr;,#*,,*"wf;* t"n!'tamat_e+stamr i,irii-#g oo** 5:: not enterTaining ang registration/Mutatiors of the said wakf propertg on 28-11-2006 In-spite of the instructions and. the D-O. I-etters from tlrc Government ttrc tlrcn C.E.O., Sn Shcik Modtnr fulab intentionallg and knouinglg has not taken ang action against the anlprits whn sold awaA tle lands for tlwir oun personal benejits and delaged fo issue the Slww Cause ratice which is euident from tlrc date of notie i.e., on 25-01-2009 and allowed tLrc sale of tlrc said utakf land. The Jamat-e-Islami Social Seruice Societg submitted their replg to tlrc Slnut Cause nottce issued bg tle Wakf Board onlg afier one long gear i.e., 15-03-2008. But tfre fircn C-D.O., hauefailedto take ang action against ttrc persons responsible for the illegal sale for more tltan one gear and euen failed to remind tle said societg. The Jamat-e-Islami Social Seruice Societg in their erytlanation lws set up a false deferrce bg stating tlnt tle propertg in question i"s not a Wakf Propertg and misleaded the authorities and. requested to utithdraw tlrc shout caus notice. The Wakf Board soughl for a l*gal Opinion from its Sentor Standing Counsel Sn S.M. Srl}}anL u?n ll,r"s giuen an opinion again"st the Wakf bg stating that the person who haue registered the Wakf nanrla uos a third person qnd it ds not knoutrq on ulnse request the Wakf Board has issued the Muntlnkab and also stated that no citations lnue been published before issuing the Muntlnkob. The then Special Officer, Wakf Board Sri M.A. Quddus hrs sought the opinion of Law Olficer of Wakf Board on the aduise of the Standing Counsel. The Law Olficer of Wakf Board lns giuen a clear picture of Wakf and speciallg tte wakf propertg in question and corrcluded ttmt the said property cannot be deleted from Kitab-ul-Wakf as it is registered uakf for a putpose which comes under tlrc puruieut of Wakf. In spite of the Legal opinion of the Law Officer, tlrc tten C.E.O.. Sn Shaik Modhar Salrcb foregotng the legal opinion intentionallg reammended for taking a decision on tte endorsem.ent of the Special Olficer Sri M.A. Qudduq who was irrclined to delete tLrc said propertg from Kitab-ul'Wakf and uithdraw tle slnw caase notice i.ssued bg the Wakf Board krrcwinglg it's a registered wakf propertg in the same olfice. Finallg, tle Special Olfier, Sri M.A. Quddus concluded bg stating tlnt the said propertg mag be deleted bg gtuing a citation and tten delete th.e same from the Kitab-ul-Wakf and decided to withdraut tlrc "SLou Cause Notice" issued to the Jamat-e-Islami fucial Seruice Societg. As per the orders passed bg tle C.E.O., Sri Shaik Madlnr Saheb, the shou cause rwtice so i:ssued to the said societg utas withdrawn through Lr.No:Ml/ 6/ Prot/ R.R/ 2OO5, dated O9-O5-2OOB and. the Sub-Regi, strar was also specifically informed onthe same date bg stating tlnt the show cause notie so fssued bg tlrc Wakf Board ltaue been with.draun and fufther stated that the Sub-rcgistrar, Maheshwaram maA talee necessary action in the said matter as deemedfit. The Jamat-e-Islani Social Seruice fuciefu" tlr.s sold auaA tlrc entire ertent of Ac.428-OI Gfs., in fawur of uaious indiuiduaLs and euen got tlrcm registered with the &tb-Registra4 Maheshutaram. /f is also learnt that tlrc corrcerned reuenue reords haue also been changed from "Muslim Maternitg Hospital" to uarious indiuiduals bg wag of "Mutations". From the aboue facts it is uery much evident tltf,t the "ill-motiue" and. "Criminal conspiracg behind the entire case tls to d.elete tlrc subiect Wakf Propertg from Kitab-ul-Walcf' and declare it a.s "non uakf' for personal '1 . i n 6:: gains and the Officer ancerned havirry full knouledge of the entire knowinglg/ htentionallg misused their pouers in the olficial capacities of Chief Dceantiue Officer and withdrautn tlrc shaw cause notice uhich is nothing but admitting that the properTg is questton rs nof a utakf propertg- The action taken bg the said olficer amounts to violation of the prouisions of "Wak1' Act 1 995' and to damage the wakf. LINGARAJ PANIGRAHI PRL. SECRETARY TO C,OWRNMENT / / FORWARDED : : BY ORDER/ / SECTION OFFICER

#5. The petitioner submitted a detailed written explanation dated L3.O9.2O1() denying all the allegations. It was specifically stated that the alleged alienation of Ac.l2-16 Gts had taken place prior to his deputation; that petitioner had issued a show cause notice dated

25.01 .2OO'7 immecliately upon receiving instructions; that upon receiving no response, he conducted enquiries with the Revenue Authoritier; and confirmed the status of the land; and that petitioner a had requested initiation of legal proceedings through the standing counsel. 'the petitioner further stated that tlle reply of the Society disputing the wakf nature of the land was considered, and the matter was placed before the then Special officer Sri M.A. euddus, who, after obtaining legal opinions, directed withdrawal of the show cause notice and initiation of steps for deletion from the Wakf register. It was specifically contended that the petitioner acted only in implenrentation of the orders of the competent authority and not on his own volition.

#6. Ttte petitioner attained the age of superannuation and retired from sert'ice on 3O.O6.2OLl while working as Additional Director in the Civil Supplies Department. However, in view of the pendency of the disciplinary proceedings initiated uide Charge Memo dated

17.O2.2O10, his final pensiq$, gratuit5r, leave encashment and other retiral benefits were not settled, and only provisional pension has been paid to him from the date of retirement till date. It is submitted that no Enquiry Oflicer has been appointed and no enquiry*$as been conducted even after submission of the explanation, resulting in inordinate delay.

#7. On a complaint lodged by Sri B.S. Farooq Ahmed, former C.E.O of the A.P. State Wakf Board, an FIR in Crime.No.257 of 2OO9 dated L6.O9.2OO9 was registered under Sections 406, 42O and 12O(B) IPC against the petitioner and others. After investigation, the police liled a Final Report dated 22.O9.2OL5 stating that the matter was civil in nature, and the XII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, by order dated 14.LO.2O16 accepted the Final Report and closed the criminal case, thereby exonerating the petitioner of criminal liability arising out of the same set of allegations.

#8. Thereafter, the petitioner submitted representations dated

06.03.2017 and ll.lO.2023 to the respondents requesting release of his fult pensionary and retiral benefits, bringing to their notice the closure of the criminal case and the absence of any concluded disciplinary proceedings. Pursuant thereto, the Secretary to Government, Minorities Welfare Department, issued Memo dated O9.1 1 .2023 directing the C.E.O, Telangana State Wakf Board to _-..._-_---, 8: examine tht: matter and submit a report. However, no further action has been taken, and the disciplinary proceedings continue to remain pending without conclusion.

#9. Durinl; the pendency of the present writ petition, this Court impleaded t.he State of Andhra Pradesh and its Commissioner of Civil Supplies as respondent Nos.4 and 5, in view of the fact that the petitioner r etired prior to bifurcation of the State and the service records art: maintained by the State of Andhra Pradesh. Counter affidavits trave been filed by the respondents, wherein it is stated that the disciplinary file has been retrieved and the matter is under active cons; ideration, and that the allegations involve serious issues relating to wakf property of substantial value. However, despite such assertions. no enquiry has been conducted and the proceedings have not attained finalit5r, resulting in continued withholding of the petitioner'r; retiral benefits. Submissions on behalf of petitioner 1(). Learned counsel for the petitioner advanced the following submissions hereunder: i. That the impugned action of the respondents is whorly arb:trary and unsustainable in law. It is submitted that though the charge Memo was issued as early as lr.o2.2or0 under Rule 2o of the 1991 Rules, and the petitioner had submitted his detailed explanation on 13.o9 .2oro, no further steps have I i i j ) )- ..o.. been taken by the respondents to proceed with or conclude the disciplinary proceedings. The petitioner retired on 30.O6.2OLL and, despite lapse of more than fifteen years from the date of issuance of the Charge Memo, no Enquiry Officer has been appointed, no enquiry has been cpnducted, and no final orders have been passed. Such inordinate and unexplained delay is violative of the time limits prescribed under G.O.Ms.No.679 dated O1.11.2008, which mandates completion of disciplinary proceedings within a stipulated period of three to six months depending upon the complexity of the case, and also vitiates the very proceedings and renders them liable to be set aside. ii. That the criminal case uide Cnrrre.No.217l2OO9 registered in connection with the same subject matter was closed by the learned Magistrate on 14.10.2016 after the police filed a final report dated 22.09.2015 opining that the matter was "purely civil in nature". The learned XII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, by order dated L4.LO.2O|6, accepted the said Final Report and closed the criminal case. It is submitted that even thereafter, ro civil action has been initiated by the Wakf Board or any authority in respect of the subject property. In the absence of any subsisting civil or criminal proceedings, the continued pendency of the departmental proceedings and consequential withholding of ..-9i*,\-+r-"- 0I r penSir)oar] benefits is wholly unjustified and amounts to perpetuating a stale charge. iii. That the right to receive pension is a valuable property right prote:ted under Article 3oo-A of the constitution of India. Placirrg reliance on stcte of Kerala a. Iw. padmanabhan Nair: and S.X(. Dua u. Sta, te of Haryana2, it is submitted that any culpable delay in settlement and disbursement of retire[ benefits must necessarily entail payment of interest. In the p,lsssnt case, the petitioner has been deprived of his lawful dues since his retirement on 30.o6.2orL and has been paid only provisional pension. Such deprivation for more than fourl.een years, without conclusion of proceedings, is wholly arbil.rary and the petitioner is entitled to interest at 1g% per annlrm on all delayed payments. iv. Further, the petitioner by ptacing reliance on state Bank oJ rndia a. r{avin Kumar sinhas, submitted that no disciplinary proc, eeding can be initiated after the delinquent employee retires from service on attaining the age of superannuation or afte:: the extended period of service. Arthough the charge memo in the present case was issued prior to retirement, it was conlended that the proceedings have not been continued in accrlrdance with law; no enquiry officer was appointed before I lrsss; I scc 429 21zoos; 3 scc 44 3 202+ SCCOrLine sc 3369 r ::11:: retirement, and therefore the legal fiction of continuance of service under Rule 9(a) of the A.P. Revised Pension Rules, 1980 (for short'1980 RulesJ cannot be invoked. v. That the action of the respondents is discriminatory and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. [t is pointed out that in respect of the then Special Officer, Sri M.A. Quddus, against whom identical allegations arose out of the same transaction, disciplinary proceedings were initiated by his parent department, namely the General Administration Department, Government of Andhra Pradesh, and the same were dropped uide U.O. Note No.a6lSC.D/A1 I2OIO-1 dated t7.O7.2OlO. However, in the case of the petitioner, the proceedings have been kept pending for an inordinate period without any justification, which amounts to hostile discrimination. vi. That the respondents have failed to adhere to Rule 24 of the 1991 Rules, which provides for common proceedings where two or more Government servants are involved in the sarne transaction. Since the allegations against the petitioner and the said Sri M.A. Quddus arise out of the same set of facts and decisions taken at the Wakf Board level, the respondents ought to have conducted common disciplinary proceedings. The failure to do so, coupled with dropping of charges against one of{icer and continuation against the other, renders the proceedings arbitrary and unsustainable. z:12:: submissions on behalf of respondent No.1 to a- state of Telangana

#11. Learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the respondent No.1- State of Telangana, Minorities welfare Department has advanc, ed the submissions as under: i. That the allegations against the petitioner are of a grave and serious nature. That while functioning as c.E.o of the A.p. statt: wakf Board, the petitioner misused his official position and facilitated alienation of valuabte wakf land admeasuring abotrt Ac.428-o1 Gts, valued at more than Rs.lOoo crores. such acts, if established, constitute grave misconduct and breach of trust by a public servant. That wakf propert5r is inauenable in nature under section 51 of the wakf Act, 1995 (for short '1995 ActJ, and any act enabring its alienation with.out sanction is a serious illegality warranting disciplinary acti, rn. ii. That the disciplinary proceedings were validly initiated while the petitioner was in service, as the charge Memo was issued on 17.o2.2olo, much prior to his retirement on 30.06.2011. Plar:ing reliance on Rule 9(a) of the 1980 Rules, it is contended that the Government is empowered to continue disciplinary proceedings even after retirement and to withhold or withdraw perLsion if the pensioner is found guilty of grave misconduct in ::13:: proceedings instituted prior to retirement. Therefore, the continuation of proceedings and withholding of pensionary benefits is fully justified in law. iii. That the closure of the criminal case does not bar or affect the d.epartmental proceedings. It is well settled that the standard of proof in criminal proceedings is higher, whereas in departmental proceedings it is based on preponderance of probabilities. Therefore, even if the criminal case is closed as being civil in nature, the disciplinary proceedings can validly continue on the same set of facts. iv. That the delay cannot be attributed solely to the respondents, as the petitioner himself contributed to the delay by submitting muttiple representations. Further, the bifurcation of the State in the year 2OI4 resulted in administrative complications, including transfer of records between the successor States. The delay does not vitiate the proceedings nor render the Charge Memo invalid. v. That the present writ petition is premature, as the disciplinary proceedings are still pending and no final order has been passed. The petitioner has an effective alternative remedy under the CCA Rules to challenge any adverse order, and therefore invocation of jurisdiction under Article 226 at this stage is not warranted. \_r I __- z:l4zz vi. That the dropping of charges against Sri M.A. Quddus does not confer any enforceable right upon the petitioner. Each case has to be considered on its own merits, and the principle of equality cannot be invoked to claim parity in illegality. vii. That Rule 24 of the 1991 Rules is discretionary in nature and does not mandate common proceedings in every case involving multiple officers. Therefore, non-conduct of common procr:edings does not vitiate the disciplinary action against the petitioner. viii. The respondent No.1 in support of its case has placed reliance on tht: following decisions as under: a. Chairman-cum-Managing Director, Mahanadi Coalfeilds Limited v. Rabindranath Choubef t,. R.Veerabhadram v. Government of A.P.s

#12. We have taken note of the respective submissions and the material p,laced on record. Consideration by this Court

#13. The principal issue that arises for consideration is whether the disciplinary proceedings initiated against the petitioner prior to his retirement can be continued thereafter and whether the respondents are justilied in withholding the full pensionary benefits pending j t I 4 lzozo;18 scc 71 s lrsssy 9 scc 43 *-d ::15:: conclusion of such proceedings. In regard to the above, it is pertinent to note that the Rule 9(a) of the 1980 Rules, confers power upon the Government to withhold or withdraw pension where a pensioner is found guilty of grave misconduct in a departmental or judicial proceeding instituted prior to retirement. Rule 9(a) of the 198O Rules is extracted hereunder for ready reference: Rule 9- Rlght of @oera; ment to utithhold or uithdraut pension :' U ff,e Gouernm.ent reserues to them.selues tlw right of tuitllholding a pension or gradtitg, or both either in full or in part, or with.drawing a pension in full or in part, wlrcther permanentlg or for a speciftc period and of ordering recouery from a pension or gratuitg of tte uhole or part of ang peanniary loss caused, to the Gouernment and to tlte local autharitg if, in ang departmental or judicial proceedings ttrc pensioner is found gMiltg of graue misennduct or negligenre durtng ttrc period of his seruice, including seruice rendered. upon re-emplogment after retirement : Prouided tlwt tl,e Andhra Pradesh Public Seruice Commission shall be consttlted before ang fitnl orders are pa, ssed. Hotueuer, corusultation with Andlua Pradesh Public Seruie Cornmission is not necessary, wlen the pensioner i.s found guiltg in ang iudicial proceedings". Proutded furtlrcr thnt a part of pension is withheld or uith.draun, the amount of such pension slwll not be reduced below the limit specifted in stb-ntle (5) of R:.lle aSl Prouided also tlnt tlrc penaltg of tttithholdirq of entire pension or gratuity or both mag be imposed against the retired Gouernment seruant upon being found guiltg or upon rcnuiction in a ourt of taw for the offences of graue clnrges namelg proued cases of misappropriation, bribery, bigamg, comtption, moral turpitude, forgery, outraging the modestg of uomen and misconduct. Qila) fhe departmental proeedings referred to in sub-rule (1), if instituted while the Governm.ent seruant utas in servire whether before his retirement or during his re-emplogm.ent, shall, afier the firwl retirement of the Gouernment seruan[ be deemed tn be proceedings under this ruLe and shalt be contirrued and ancluded bg the auttnritg bg uthich tleg were amm.enced in tlw same manner as if tlrc Gouernment seruant had continuedin seruice. Prouided that utlrcre the departmental proceedings are instituted bg an atfilwritg subordinate to tle State Gouerrtmen[ tlmt authoritg stnll submit a report rearding its findings to tlrc State kuemment- Note :- The function of tte disciplinary autlwritg is onlg to reach a finding on tle clnrges and to submit a report rearding its Jindings to the :: l6:: Gouerutment. It is thenfor th.e Gouernment to crnsider tlefindings and take a final d<lcision under this rule. In ca, se Gouernntent decide to take action under this rule in the tight of the findings of tlw disciptinary authority, the Gouemme-nt will serue the person concerned with a shaut-cause notice specifyin'7 the action proposed to be taken under this rule and the person concernetl wilt be required to submit his reply to tlrc slwut-cause notice utithin such time as maA be specified bg the Gouernment. The Gouernment will consider the replg and consult tlrc Andhra Pradesh Public Seruice Commission. If a,s a result of such consideration in ansultation with the Commission, ft is decided to pass an order under tLrc rule, necessary orders will be issuedinthe name of the Gouernment. (b) ***** ***** (s) 4) In t?u case of a Government seruant who ha.s retired on attaining the. age of s',tperannuation or otlrcrwise and against wlam ang departmental or judicitl proceedings are instituted or ulrcre departme.ntal proceedings are continued under subrule (2), a prouisional pen"sion as provided in Rule 52 shall be sanctioned. A pl:rin reading of the aforesaid Rule makes it abundantly clear that the esisential requirement is the institution of proceedings before retiremenl; it does not mandate that such proceedings must be concluded before the date of superannuation. On the contrary, the provision contemplates continuation of such proceedings even after retiremenl for the limited purpose of determining the entitlement to pension.

#14. It is; to be noted that it is not in dispute that the Charge Memo was issur:d to the petitioner on 17.O2.2O1O, whereas he attained superannuation on 30.06.2OL1. Thus, the disciplinary proceedings were undoubtedly instituted while the petitioner was in service. The statutory pre-condition under Rule 9(4) stands satisfied, and the respondents are legally entitled to continue the proceedings even after retir ement. :zl7zz

#15. Further, the reliance placed on Nanin Kumar Sinha (supra 3) by the learned counsel for the petitioner is distinguishable on facts. In that case, the charge memo was issued after the employee had already retired from service, and it was in that context that the Apex Court held that initiation of disciplinary proceedings post-retirement is impermissible. However, in the present case, the impugned proceedings were initiated well before the retirement of the petitioner. The ratio laid down in the said judgment, therefore, does not in any way advance the case of the petitioner. On the contrary, the legal position that proceedings validly initiated prior to retirement can be continued thereafter stands reaffirmed.'

#16. .It is a settled law in service jurisprudence that retirement does not ipso facto terminate disciplinary proceedings initiated during service. The delinquent employee is deemed to continue in service for the timited purpose of conclusion of such proceedings. The issuance of a charge memo constitutes initiation of disciplinary proceedings, and once such initiation takes place prior to retirement, the employer retains the authority to proceed further in accordance with the governing rules and to determine the question of withholding or withdrawal of pension upon conclusion of the enquiry.

#17. The Honble Supreme Court in tlnion of India and oth.ers a. K.V. Jornkira; mrln and otlralr5lc while holding that a disciplinary 6 MANU/SC 1044511991 = AIR 1991 SC 2010 :: 18:: proceeding is deemed to have been initiated.when the charge memo is issued, h:rs held as under:

#5. On the first question, viz., as to when for the purposes of the sealed. couer pro<:edure the disciplinaru/criminal proeedirTas can be salid to lnue commenad, the Full Bench of the Tibunal hns lrcld tlnt it is onlu uhen a charoe-memo in a disciplinaru proceedirws or a charge-slrcet in a criminal proseqtti<tn is issued to the emplouee tlwt it can be said th.at the departmental proceedinqs/criminal proseaftion is initiated against the emplouee. Tlrc sealed couer procedure is to be resorted to onlg afier the cltnrge-m,zmo/charge-sheet is issued. The pendencg of preliminary inuestigation pior to thnt stage will not be suficient to enable tlrc autlnrities to adopt the sealed auer proredure. We are in agreement uith on this point..... ,Tribunal (emphasis supplied)

#18. [n t]re present case, the allegations levelled against the petitioner l)ertain to misuse of official position while functioning as C.E.O of ttre A.P. State Wakf Board, resulting in alleged alienation of Wakf prop'ert5r adrrr-easuring about Ac.428-01 Gts. Having regard to the nature of the allegations and the magnitude of the alleged loss, the charges, if proved, would amount to grave misconduct within the meaning ,:f Rule 9(41. [n such circumstances, the respondents cannot be faulted for withholding the full pension pending adjudicati, tn of the charges, as any contrary direction would defeat the very olcject of the rule.

#19. White this Court cannot ignore the delay caused in the conclusion of the departmental proceedings, it cannot also be unmindful of the fact that there was bifurcation of the State of Andhra Pradesh in the year 2014 which, according to the learned Additional Advocate General led to administrative complexities, ::19.:: including the transfer of records between the successor States- Further, there was a genuine . confusion aS to the competent disciplinary authority, whether it was the borrowing department (Minority Welfare) or the parent department (Civil Supplies) of the delinquent oflicer which was required to conduct and conclude the departmental proceedings. This required legal clarification under Rule 3O of the LggL Rules. Furthermore, the original disciplinary file had been transferred from the Consumer Affairs, Food and Civil Supplies Department to the Minorities Welfare Department. It is submitted that the file has now been retrieved and active steps are being taken to expeditiously conclude the enquiry. Upon a pragmatic review, we are satisfied that the delay is not the result of negligence or deliberate inaction on the part of the State. In our considered view, mere delay, in the absence of demonstratable prejudice to the delinquent in defending the proceedings, does not automatically vitiate the proceedings. In such circumstances, the appropriate course is to direct expeditious completion of the enquiry rather than to quash the proceedings at the threshold. 2C,. In regard to the issue as to whether the closure of the criminal proceedings and the dropping of charges against a co-delinquent would have any bearing on the continuance of the departmental proceed.ings against the petitioner, it is relevant to note that criminal proceedings and departmental proceedings operate in distinct fields and are governed by different standards of proof and objectives' .3' *J ::20:: While a criminal prosecution is intended to determine guilt for an offence against the State on the basis of proof beyond reasonable doubt, a departmental proceeding is concerned with maintaining discipline and integrity in public service and proceeds on the standard rrf preponderance of probabilities. The outcome of one does not autorrratically conclude the other. 2L. As regard the issue of closure of the criminal case, this Court notes a Jrrocedural lapse on the part of the investigating agency. From the Final Report submitted by the police (Final Report No.28 of 2015 dated 22.09.20151, it is evident that the informant, i.e., the former CIDO of the A.P. State Wakf Board was not issued any notice before liting of the linal report before the Magr strate. The frnal report merely states that "a notice to the complainant has been served and acknowledged copy of the same is submitted herewith", however, no such notice or acknowledgment is brought on record. More importan tly, prior to the learned XII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate accepting the Final Report and closing the criminal case on 14.13.2O16, no notice was issued to the informant. The informarrt, being the original complainant, was thus not afforded an opporturrit5r of being heard on the question whether the case should be treatr:d as civil in nature and closed. This omission violates the principle, that complainant has a right to be heard before the closure of a crinrinal case, as recognized under Section lZ3(2Xi0 of Code of Criminal Procedure and the well settled law laid down by the Hon, ble I ::21:z Suprerne Court in Bhoguant Stngh o. Comrmissloner of Police and othcrsT. However, since the present writ petition is not filed by the informant but by the delinquent officer seeking the release of his pensionary benefits, this Court does not propose to make orders on the reopening of the criminal case. Nonetheless, the fact that the informant was not put on notice before the closure of the criminal case against the delinquent officer is a material circumstance that weakens the petitioner's contention that the closure amounts to a clean exoneration. The departmental proceedings, being independent in nature, remain unaffected by the said lapse.

#22. The question as to whether the petitioner was guilty of dereliction of duty, acted in excess of his authorit5r while functioning as C.E.O, failed to discharge his duties diligently, or facilitated any irregularity in relation to Wakf propert5r, are matters which fall squarely within the domain of disciplinary proceedings and can be independently examined by the competent authority.

#23. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Stf, fe of RoJastltan a. B-K- Meena and other$e while distinguishing between criminal proceeding and departmental proceeding has held as under:

#7. There is get another req, son. Tle approach and the obiectiue in the criminal proeedirws antd the di.sciolinaru proceedirws is altogetlrcr distinct and dilfercnt. In the discinlinary proceedings, the auestion is wheth.er the resoondent is auiku of sttch ondtd a.s utould merit his remoual from seruie or a les.ser puni.shmeil. a.s th.e cose mou be ulereas in the criminal oroceedilqs tle question is whettrcr the ORDER WP.No.295 of 2025 1 tt E STa o L) 1 6 APR 2026 z * cF, -r.fCS!' .lg DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS b\ \6