The High Court · 2025

Judgment

2. The Union of lndia, Rep by Prl Director. Directorate of Defense Estates. IMinistry of Defense, Southern Command, Pune, Maharashtra State. The Cantonment Board Secunderabad, Rep by its Chief Executive Officer, Secunderabad Court Complex, R P Road, Secunderabad. ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a writ, order or directions more particularly writ of mandamus to declare the action of the 2nd Respondent in not processing the pension papers submitted by the petitioner to release the pension and pensionery benefits of petitioner as per the directions made in WP No.13880120.15 dated 01.05.2015 is

arbitrary, illegal and against to the principles of law, consequentially to direct the 2nd Respondent to process the pension papers submitted by the petitioner dated 14-05-2015 as per the directions of the Hon'bleHigh Court dated 01-05- 2015 in WP No.1388012015 and to release the pension and pensioneiy benefits to the petitioner without any further delay -7 lA NO: 1 oF 2022 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 direct the 2nd Rc6pondent to process the pension papers of the petitioner submitted on dated 14-05,-2015 and to release the pension and pensionery benefits to the petitioner without any further delay Counsel for the Petitioner: SRl. A. PHANI BHUSHAN Counsel for the Respondent No.1: SRI N. BHUJANGA RAO, DY. SOLICITOR GENERAL OF INDIA Counsel for the Respondent No.2: SRI K.R. KOTESWARA RAO, SC FOR CANTONMENT The Court made the following: ORDER **7 i' THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA ORDER: Heard sri A.phani Bhushan, rearned counser appearing on beharf of the petitioner, sri N.Bhujanga Rao, learned Deputy soricitor Generar of rndia appearing on behalf of the respondent No.1 and sri K.R.Koteswara Rao, learned standing counset for cantonment appearing on behalf of the respondent No.2. 2 as under: ""'to issue a writ order or directions more particurarry writ of mandamus to decrare the action of the znd Respondent in not p.oi"rring the pension papers submitted by the petitioner to ,."r-"uru *i" p"nrion and pensionery benefits of petitioner as per the directions made in wP No.13880/201,5 dated or.os.zors is aroitia'ry iregar and against to the principres of raw consequentiaily to direct the 2nd Responden! to pro."r, the pension papers submitted by the petitioner'dated r+-os-ioii'u, pu,. tn" directions of the Honbre nigh court dated 01-05-2015 in wp No'13880/20L5 and to rer6ase tne pension and pensionery benefits to the petitione' withoui any further 'deray pass..." (- z SNrJ W.P.No.1192t of 2022 r:S3:"+*-r. 3 i)ThePetitionerretiredaSseniorPharmacistfromthe2nd RespondentCantonmentBoardonattainingtheageof superannuationon3l'03'2014'Priortoretirement'the petitionerwasplacedunderSuspensionandthoughanEnquiry officerWaSappointed,nodepartmentalenquiryWaSConducted. ii)ThisCourt,inW'P'No'20654of2010'directedthe RespondentstopaysubsistenceallowancetothePetitioner duringtheperiodofsuspension.However,despitethesaid directions, the suspension was continued without conducting any resume departmentalenquiry,andthePetitionerwasnotpermittedto thepetitioner'sduties'Afterretirement'the ResPondents failed to release the petitioner's pension and pensionary benefits despite several representations' iii)ThePetitionerfiledW.P.No.l3BBoof20l5,andthisCourt, vide interim order dated 01.05.2015, directed the Respondents toreceivepetitioner,spensionpapersandprocessthesamein accordance with law. Accoqdqgly, the petitioner submitted her - J SN,J W.P.No.11921 of 2022 pension papers on 14.05,2015, but the Respondents have not taken any action to sanction or release pension and pensionary benefits till as on date. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed the present writ petition.

4.P RUS DT ERECOR D: A) Soecial Judqe rc IC 3 o1 d hereunder: f r h ases at Hvde raba da ed 2 r ."In the result, the Accused Officer is sentenced to under go Simple imprisonment for a period of two-12; years and also sentenced to pay Rs.5,000/_(Ruoees .thousand only), in defaulr three (3i 'r"-"Ln, simple imprisonment for the charge unaei Sec.+Og of IPC, the Accused Officer is senienced to unaei go Simple Imprisonment for a period of two 1)f years and also sentenced to pay Rs.5,OOO/-(Ruiu"r' fiu" thousand onty), in default three i:; hontfis lmpfe imprisonment for the charge under Sec q7Z _A of tiC, and the'Accused Officer ls sentenced to unJei go Simple Imprisonment for a period of two (Zf years and also sentenced to pay Rs.5,000/_(Rui"L, nu. thousand only), in default three (3) months simple imprisonment for the charge under'Sec. 13(2) r/w 13(1) (c) of P.C.Act and the Accused Officer'is aiso sentenced to under go Simple Imprisonment for a p".log^9f. !ryo (Z) years and atso sentenced to pay Rs.5,000/-(Rupees five thousand onfV), in alf5uft (3] months_simple imprisonment for ttre chaige 1r."_". uncler Sec. L3(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. 4 SNrJ W.P.No.1192t ol2022 All the above sentences shall run concurrently, to meet the ends of justice. The remand period if any is set off under Sec.428 of Cr.P.C. Destroy M.Os.1 to 47, as their dates already expired and not for human consumption."

5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the petitioner is not insisting for the relief as sought for in the present writ petition. However, placing reliance on the documents filed along with the memo dated 22.09.2025 with respect to subsequent developments, it is contended that the petitioner had filed an appeal against the judgment dated

23.04.2010 passed in C.C. No.17 of 2016 by the Court of the Special Judge for CBI Cases, Hyderabad, whereby the petitioner was convicted and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of two years and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-, and in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months.

6. Learned counsel aooearino on behalf of the oetitioner submits that, aoorieved bv the order dated

23.O4.2O1O passed in C.C. No.17 of 2OO6 bv the Court of the Soecial Judge for CBI Cases. Hvderabad. the petitioner 5 SN,J W.P.No.1192l of 2022 observed as under: "16. To prove the offence under Section 477-A of IPC, prosecution has to prove that the appellant had willfully with an intent to defraud has falsified the books of accounts. As already discussed above, the defrauding as alleged under Section 4O9 of IPC, was not made out. Further, the prosecution has not come up with any evidence quantifying the result of the alleged 58 instances of the indent slips maintained in the hospital to cover up misappropriation and cause loss to a tune of Rs.7,603/-. At first instance misappropriation itself was not proved. Further, nothing is specified by the witnesses as to what were the 58 instances resulting in the falsification of the stock books to cover up the misappropriation of Rs.7,6O3l-. Only on the basis of evidence that certain copies of the indents found in the office reflected variation with the original will not suffice to prove guilt under Section 477-A of the IPC, unless it is specified that the said variation in the indents was to cover up any misappropriation of Rs.7,603/- drugs and surgical items that were found in the office stores, in accordance with the charges framed. The prosecution did not correlate in between the misappropriation charge under Section 409 and the falsification of accounts under Section 477-A of the IPC. Such vague assertions by the prosecution cannot form basis to find the appellant guilty under Sectibn 477-A of IPC. t7. Tn view of the prosecution failing to prove the offence under Section 409 and 477-A of IPC, the offence under Sections 13(2) r/w 13(1)(c) and (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, which charge is on the basis of the charges under Sections 409 and 477-A of IPC, also are not made out.

18. Accordingly, the appellant succeeds and the Criminal Appeal is allowed setting aside the conviction recorded by the Special Judge for CBI Cases, Hyderabad, in 6 SN,J W.P.No.1192t of 2022 CC.No.17 of 2006, dated 23.O4.2OL0. Since the appellant is on bail, her bail bonds shall stand discharged.,,

7. Learned counsel appearing on behatf of the petitioner further submits that, in pursuance of the order dated 27.12.2024 passed in crl.A. No.633 of 2o1o in favour of the petitioner, the petitioner submitted a detailed representation dated o5.o2.2o25 to the chief Executive officer, cantonment Board, Hyderabad, court compound, Rashtrapathi Bhavan Road, secunderabad, requesting for release of the pending arrears including increments and pensionary benefitsr Els per the petitioner's legal entitlement, duly taking into consideration the order of this court dated 2l.Lz.zoz4 passed in c.c.No.L7 of 2oo6 by the court of the special Judge for cBr cases, Hyderabad. Though the said representation was duly acknowtedged by the office of the 2nd respondent, no action had been taken on the said representation till as on date, hence, petitioner again renewed petitioner's request vide reminder, dated 22.07.2o2o. Therefore, the present writ petition may be disposed of by directing the 2nd respondent to consider and take appropriate action on the petitioner,s grievance, 7 { I t 7 SNrJ W.P.No.1192L ot 2O22 as put forth vide petitioner's representation dated 05.02.2025 and reminder dated 22.01.2025 addressed to the 2nd respondent, within a reasonable period, in accordance with law.

8. Learned standinq counsel appearino on behalf of the resoondent No.2 does not dispute the said submission made bv the learned counsel aopearino on behatf of the oetitioner.

9. TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION: a) The aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, b) The submissions made by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and the tearned standing counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent No.2, c) The order of this court dated 22.t2.2o24 passed in crl.A. No.533 of 2o1o (referred to and extracted above), I \ The- present writ oetition is disoosed of, directinq resoondent No.2 to consider the petitioner,s reouest for release of oension arrears. pendino increments, and other pensionarv benefl reoresentation. dated o5.02.2o25 and atso oetitioner,s reminder made vide letter. dated 22.o7.2o25 addressed to the 2nd respondent herein dulv takino into consideration the order of this court dated 27.12.2o24 oassed in crl.A. No.633 of 2o10, and pass aooropriate orders oertaining to the said requests of the oetitioner, in accordance to law, within a period of three(3) months from the date of receiot of a copv of this order and dulv communicate the decision on petitioner's reoresentations. dated o5.02.2025 & 22.o7.2o25 addressed to the 2no respondent to the petitioner herein. However. there shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if dry, pending in this writ Petition, shall stand closed. -l-.. -.. IST I""iH'[ts?HXf; /TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER ,\ \ I I To, Defense Estates' Ministry

2. The Director, Union of lndia, Directorate outhern Com mand, Pune, Maharashtra State 1 The PrinciPal of Defense, S Board Officer, Executive Chief lex, R P Road, Secu nde rabad Secu nderabad :Court Co toPUCl BHUSHAN, Nl r Sot-tctroR GENERAL OF I. A. PHA CC to SR JANGA RA,O, DY I. N. BHU CC to SR ARA RAO, SC FOR CANTONMENT TOPUC] PUCI

3. One .4. One Secunderabad Ca ntonment rNDIA [o Advocate SRI. K.R. KOTESW CC to CD CoPies

5. One 6. Two \4. B$ r' CC TODAY u,iE $ I i,.l 1 6 CIt[ ?rfl5 * HIGH GOURT DATED:0711012025 ORDER WP.No.11921 ot 2022 DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS 6ct *+"1 kt,t -1 ,i .j,i r .:..