The High Court · 2025

Petition Under Article 226 of Ihe constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith. the High court may be pleased to call for the records relating to the impugned G'O lVls'Nc- 273 d1.23.11.2012 and its cOnsequential Memo dI.1 .11.2012 imposing the punishing of withholding of 10% pension for a period of three years is at the belated stage is illegal, arbitrary, discriminatory, unjust and opposed to the principles of natural justice and crntrary to ttre Apex Court orders and setaside the same on the ground of delay in laches consequently hoid that the applicant is entitled for all benefits without anY Punishment. Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI N. RAMU Counsel for the Respondents : GP FOR HOME The Court at the stage of admission made the following ORDER THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAJYIAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO WRIT PE-TITION {T.Rl.IIo.527 OF oL7 ORDER: Heard Srj N. Ramu, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned A:;si:;tant Government pleader for Home appearing for respondents and perused the material available on record.

2. Learned cou nsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was working as Rr:serve Inspector of police, A.R. Adilabad was placed under suspensic,r-r vide proceedings dated O5.06.2OO2, on the allegation that h,: behaved gross high handed and indisciptined manner and indu)ged in corrupt practice without any valid grounds and he \^,as reinstated vide proceedings dated 31.10.2003 pending disciplinary proceedings. It is further submitted that the petitioner has retirecl fronr s;erwice on attaining the age of superannuation on

31. I.2009.

3. Le arned c:or_.rnsel for the petitioner further submitted that a Chargc Memo u,as issued framing the article of charges against the petitioncr ancl on perusal of the charges for concluding the enquiry against the petitioner, it may take three to six months as the chargles are simple in natu:r,:, but however, the respondents are taking nearly l2 1'szrpt time and ,;ubjecting the petitioner to attend number o[ times the enquiries because of number of Enquiry officers were appointed for concluding the enquiry which is against the specific instructions issued in G.O.Ms.No.676 dt. 1.11.2OOa, wherein the Government had directed to conclude the disciplinary proceedings to avoid hardship to the delinquent, in case of simple nature, within one or three months and in complicated cases, within a peri'od of 6 months' Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that' after 4. serving the charge memo, the petitioner had submitted his explanation and initially appointed E'O' in the year 2006 and had conducted enquiry, wherein the petitione r was permitted to cross examine the witness, who stated that the petitioner neither committed any irregularities nor demanded any arnount as alleged by the respondents. It is further submitted that, after conducting the enquiry, the authorities have; pasiea the impugned G'O Ms No 273' dated 23.11.2012 and its cbns'equbntial Memo dated 01 ll'2o12 imposing the punishment of withholding of 1O7o pension for a period of three years, whlch is at t}€' belated stage and the petitioner is seeking suspension of tJle G.O.MS'No 273, dated 23' ll'2012 and its consequential Memo dated Ol.ll.2Ol2' lrarned counsel for the petitioner furiher submitted that the 5. petitioner has submitted mercy repr€sentation dated 13'Ol'2O12 before the Principal Secretary to the Govt' of Andhra Pradesh' Home (Services-I) Departrnent, A.P. Secretariat, Hyderabad' for imposing 10% cut in pension, for dropping of all further action against the petitioner and for regularization of LT months period under suspension. IltL: ti[[ today, there is no response from the respondent authorities.

6. Learned rl.ssistant Government pleader stated that the 1"t respondent coLrnter affidavit stating that respondent No.3 has appointed anothr:r lnquiring Authority i.e., Superintendent of police, Warangal vide Memorandum C.No.2O /C/2OO3 dated, 22.O9.2007. The Inquiry Authorir',,, i.e., Superintendent of police, Warangal has conducted regularr oral enquiry against the petitioner along with his Co- delinquents as required under Rule 20 of ApCS (CC&A) Rules, 199 I , giving tht: m all reasonable and admissible opportunities and submitted his finclings to respondent No.3 duly holding the charge as "Proved" vide rr, nutes in C. No.6.OE/Carnp/OZ, dated 19.01.2010. Agreeing u,ith th: findings of Enquiry Ofhcer, respondent No.3 has supplied a copv c,l the minute drawn by the Enquiry Officer to the petitioner along with his Co-delinquents calling for further representatio n:;, il any, vide Memorandum No.20 lCl2OO3, dated, 19.11.2010. Having acknowledged the copy of minutes, the co- delinquents of lhe petirioner's have submitted their further representations r_o respondent No.3. It is further stated that respondent No 3 ltas gone through the connected Oral Enquiry file and further repr€ se.tations submitted by the co-delinquents of the petitioner and it has been found and seen from the record that the co- delinquents acted on the instnrcti'ons of the petitioner and not on their own and there is no malafide on the part of both PCs' co- delinquents, but they should have informed same to the superiors which they have failed to do so' As such, respondent No'3 has treating the awarded them the punishment of "Censure" besides suspension period as "eligible Leave" vide C.No.2/PR/2011 (R.O.No.48l2Otll dated l2'O1'2ott acknon ledged the copy of minute, the petitioner has not submitted his further representatiorr to respondents No'3 though reasonable opportunity 'was given to him. Since, tire petitioner retired from scrvice on superannuation with effect- from 31'O1'2OO9' respondent No.3 has sent the entire Oral Enqr'riry file to respondent No l through respondent No.2, for taking action against the petitioner under rule 9 Having the Proceedings (2) of AP Revrsed Pension Rules; i98O' t-laving considered the submissrons rnade by the learned 7- counsci for both the parties, without going into the merits ol the case' thc petitioner is directed to rnai<e a fresh representation beforc the respotrdent authorities by ventiiating his grievance with rcgard to the order issued by the respcndent authorities, which imposed 1O7o cut in pensicn, within a period of four (O4) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of thrs crder anC upon such repr-esen"ation being made by the petitioner, the respondent authcrities are directeci to consider the ,r) ,,| same and pass zrppropriate orders, in accordance with law, within a 1 period of eighr (08) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

8. With the zrbove directions, this Writ petition is disposed of, at the admission sta.ge itself. No order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, in this Writ PetiLion, shali stand closed. SD/. //TRUE COPY// ULLA KHAN REGISTRAR ON OFFICER \r To : : i ',l. The Principal liecretary. Home (Ser l) Dept., Telanglnp, Secretariat, State of Telangana at li'yde'abAd.-22.

2. The Director C;eneral and lnspector General of Police, State of Telangana, Hyderabad

3. The Dy .lnspector General of Police, Warangal Range, Warangal. 4. Two CCs to GP FOR HOME, High Court for the State of Telangana at \i \.' Hyderabad [C)UT]

5. One CC to SFll N. RAIVU. Advocate [OPUC] 6. Two CD Copie;s (a- SA GJP I ( t HIGH COURT DATED:1810712025 i t 1 ORDER ra' . . -'1.. fifi uil Pr WP(TR).N o.527 of 2017 ... ,-l^ . DrsPostNG oF THE W.P(TR) AT THE STAGE OF ADMISSION WITHOUT COSTS. Bl- ,?\ 1 \ '1--\