Hyderabad v. P.Krishna Murthy, Superintendent (Under Voluntary Retirement)

Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to to issue an appropriate writ or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Certiorari call for the records relating to and connected with order dated 9.4.2007 in OA.No.7370 of 2006 on the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad and quash the same and to pass file of Counsel for the Petitioner:GP FOR SERVICES I Counsel for the Respondent No.: . The Court made the following : HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU Writ Petition No.18697 of 2007 ORDER: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice Ghulam Mohammed) This writ petition is filed seeking to quash the decision rendered by the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal O.A.No.7370 of 2006 vide order dated 09-4-2007.

2. The details relevant for deciding the writ petition are as follows: The respondent herein is the applicant in the above O.A. The respondent filed the O.A. questioning G.O.Rt.No.886 dated 01-9-2006 rejecting his request for withdrawal of his letter seeking voluntary retirement. The Tribunal after considering the facts situation and relying upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in J.N.SRIVASTAVA Vs. UNION OF INDIA , directed the petitioners [1] herein to continue the respondent in service till he attains the age of superannuation and pay all back wages after deducting the pension paid. Aggrieved thereby, the official respondents preferred this writ petition.

3. Heard learned Government Pleader and learned counsel for the respondent.

4. Learned Government Pleader contended that the request for voluntary retirement was accepted and the same was communicated to the respondent and that a charge memo was issued to him and ultimately the disciplinary authority imposed the penalty of 25% cut in the pension. Learned Government Pleader further contended that the respondent has kept quiet for two years and thereafter filed an appeal before the appellate authority treating himself as retired from service.

5. Learned counsel for the respondent contended that the request for voluntary retirement was withdrawn before its acceptance and as such, the Tribunal rightly ordered the petitioners to continue the respondent in service till superannuation.

6. We have considered the rival contentions advanced on either side. Admittedly, the petitioner was working as Superintendent in the Office of the Commissioner of Sericulture, Hyderabad, and that he had submitted representation for voluntary retirement, and the same was accepted. It is to be noted that the respondent submitted an application dated 03-2-2004 to permit him to retire from service with effect from 01-05-2004 and the second petitioner accepted the voluntary retirement. Further, the disciplinary proceedings were pending against the respondent when the said request was made. While so, he sought for withdrawal of his request for voluntary retirement and the same was refused by the second petitioner. The disciplinary proceedings were continued and ultimately a penalty of 25% cut in pension was imposed on the respondent.

7. It appears that the respondent has filed an appeal with the prayer that the order imposing the penalty of 25% cut in pension may be set aside to enable him to submit his pension papers to the Accountant General, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad. This is not disputed by the counsel appearing for the respondent. The prayer itself reveals that the respondent has not sought for reinstatement into service, but to set aside the said penalty for submitting the pension papers. Thus, the appeal is preferred in the capacity of the retired employee and the Government vide its G.O.Rt.No.302 Agri. & Coop. (Vig.II) Department, dated 03-4-2006 have set aside the order of punishment. The respondent himself has stated that he had submitted the pension proposals the Deputy Director of Sericulture, Hyderabad, for fixation of the pension. Apart from this, the respondent sought reinstatement into service, two years after the penalty was set aside, which obviously is to circumvent the lapses on his part. In the foregoing circumstances especially the prayer in the appeal and also the conduct of the respondent, we are of the view that the impugned order is liable to be and is accordingly set aside.

8. In the result, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned order passed by the Tribunal is set aside. No order as to costs. __________________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J. ___________________ C.V.RAMULU, J. 03-07-2008 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE THIRD DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU WRIT PETITION NO : 18697 of 2007 Between: 1 The Govt of AP., rep.by its Principal Secretary, Agriculture & Cooperation (Seri) Department, Secretariat Hyderabad 2 The Commisisoner of Sericulture, ASP, Prasasannagar Jubilee Hills,Hyderabad ..... PETITIONER(S) AND P.Krishna Murthy, Superintendent (Under Voluntary Retirement) O/o. Commisisoner of Sericulture, AP Hyderabad R/o.Flat No.202, Bhavani Apartment, Kalyan nagar Malkajgiri, Secunderabad .....RESPONDENT Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to to issue an appropriate writ or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Certiorari call for the records relating to and connected with order dated 9.4.2007 in OA.No.7370 of the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, 2006 on Hyderabad and quash the same and to pass file of Counsel for the Petitioner:GP FOR SERVICES I Counsel for the Respondent No.: . The Court made the following : [1] (1998) 9 SCC 559