Sri. El v. Ramkumar, S/o. Late Sri BVSBB Rao, Aged

c- siddeshwar, s/o Late sri c. satyanara,yana Aged 52 years, occ Asst. Administrative officer o/o National lnititute ior the Empo*erment of persons with lntellectual Disabilities (Divyangjan) Manovikas Nagar, secunderabad-9 R/o H,No.I -9-12glz3lcl60, Ganesh-Nagar, Ramnagar, s00 020 (Under orders of retirement) -Hyderabad 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 vacate the interim order dated 2117t2022 in WP 30225 of 2022, pending disposal of the writ petition. ...RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI p.V.KRISHNAIAH Counsel for the Respondent No.1 to 3: SR! B.JITHENDER, SC FOR CENTRAL GOVT Counsel for the Respondent No.4: SRt P.PANKAJ REDDY The Court made the following: ORDER I I I I i I I r t I i t I I I I I I I i i i I i i l 3 SN,J wP No.30225_2022 THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA w.P. No. 30225 OF 2022 ORDER: Heard Sri P.V. Krishnaiah, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitaoner, Sri B. Jithender, tearned Central Government Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.l to 3 and Sra p. pankaj Reddy, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.4.

2. PBAYEB: The etitioner aooroached this Co rt seekin r un er "To grant appropriate relief more in the nature of Writ: of Mandamus under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, declaring Proceedings No.NIEpID/Esst.6(2015)/ 2O2l-22/4631 dated 30.11.2021 as arbitrary, illegal, unc,rnstitutional violating Articles 14, L6,21 and 311 of the Constitution of India, and set aside the same and issue con:;equential direction directing the Respondents to fortrwith pay full salary to the petitioner from 30.11.2021 and continue to pay the same till his reinstatement into sen'ice and further direct the authorities to recover the same from the 4th respondent and pass such other order...,, 4 SN,J wP No.30225-2022 3 The petitioner was initiaily appointed as a Lower Division clerk in the 1st respondent institute in rgg1, and was subsequently promoted as office superintendent in 2002, and later as Assistant Administrative officer in 2oog. The 1st respondent issued a charge memo dated to.r2.2ol2, framing twelve charges against the petitioner aileging misconduct. An Enquiry officer was appointed, and subsequentry, the 2nd respondent was designated as an adhoc Disciprinary Authority by the 1't respondent a practice stated to be unknown in service jurisprudence, as the disciplinary authority is ordinarily permanent in nature. The Enquiry officer submitted enquiry report dated 24.03.2015 to the 2nd respondent, which was communicated to the petitioner through Letter No. DR_ I/20L5/PDUIPH/953/Ls dated og.o7.2ot5, in response to the petitioner's representation dated 03.o7.zo15.on earlier occasion, the petitioner aggrieved by the said enquiry report filed w.p. No. 40607 of 2015 and this court was preased to suspend the / / 5 SN,J WP No.30225_2022 impugned enquiry report therein dated 22.06.2075 of the 1st respondert and all consequential proceedings. It is further the case of the petitioner that the 4th responderrt hastily, even before the conclusion of the departmental proceedings initiated against the petitioner in pursuanc() to the Enquiry Officer's report, removed petitioner from service with immediate effect from the afternoon of 30.11.20;11 under Clause (j) of Rule 56 of the Fundamental Rules, granting three months' salary in lieu of notice vide impugnecl proceedings dated 30.11.2021. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition.

4. @ (A) f)rAat im u L n 6 aA 3n ri ,n, I No.NIEPI /Estt.6(2O15) /2O L-2214631 issued the 4th respond ent is extra d hereunder .ORDER WHEREAS the competent authority is of the opinion thart it is in the public interest to do so; Now, THEREFORE, in exercise of the powers conferred by clause (j) of Rule 56 of the Fundamental Rules, the competent authority hereby retires Shri C.liiddeshwar, Assistant Administrative Officer (subjudice post) with immediate effect from the afternoon of 3O.LL.2O2L and shall be paid a sum equivalent to the 6 SN,J WP No.30225 2022 amount of his pay and allowances for the period of three months, in lieu of notice period, calculateo at tne same rate at which he was drawing immediatery before his retirement. The orders regarding retease of pension and other terminal benefits will be issued separately. This issues authority." with the approval of the competent "Heard. Learned Standing counsel appearing for the respondents submits that the petitioner has approached this court challenging the impugned order which was passed on 30.11.202L. Prima facie, the impugned order is found to have been passed without recording any reasons and without specifying as to what is the public interest involved as required under Rule 56 (i) of the Fundamental Rules. Hence, there shall be interim suspension, as prayed for, until the next date of hearing. Post on LL.OB.Z022. force as on date." I / 7 SN,J WP No.30225-2022 (c) "9. It is submitted that by following all the procedures and criteria prescribed, the Review Committee has reviewed the performance of 27 Group B & C level staff of this Institute who are falling under the purview of FR 56(i)/(l) and Rule 48 of CCS(Pension) Rules, 1972 and rec()mmended for retaining 26 staff members. The Review Cornmittee has also recommended for compulsory retirement of the petitioner, in public interest, on the grounds of doubtful integrity and on the grounds that his senrices are no longer useful to the Institute and not as a meirsure of punishment as stated by the petitioner. The grounds/ irregularities committed by the petitioner that reflects his doubtful integrity are explained below: i) The Petitioner was appointed as LDC/Typist at this Institution in 1991. While working as LDC/Typist, the Petitioner had indulged in the financial irregularities relating to purchase of "L" Folders and he was awarded with the penalty of "Censure" (Exhibit R-2) in the Rule 16 proceedings framed against him. The Petitioner while working in the post of Assistant Administrative Officer (subjudice post) had indulged in the financial irregularities in purchase of LED Lamps. An enquiry was conducted and the irregularity was proved. The Petitioner was served with a warning memo with an advice to refrain from such lapses in future. ii) Instead of correcting himself, the petitioner had again indulged in financial irregularities in procurement of Maplito papers and also displayed negligence in performance of his duties as CLO at THPI, Hyderabad during the diploma examinations 8 SN,J wP No.30225-2022 held in May, 2010. Keeping in view of seriousness of the irregularities, the Disciplinary Authority has initiated departmental proceedings against the petitioner under Rule 14 of CCS (CCA) Rules' 1965 (Exhibit R-3). iii) The petitioner had also indulged in preparation of a tender document for the years 2010-11 for annual rate contract for printing works in such a confusingmannerincontraventiontotheprovisions ofGFRnorms,withmalafideintentionsothatnew partiesmaynotunderstandandparticipateinbidding the above act on the part of the petitioner clearly showsthemalafideintentionandalsoisdepictinghis doubtful integrity and his misleading nature' It is also to submit that the petitioner while v) under suspension on L2'06'2019 alleged to have forgedtheofficialstampsandfabricatedtheofficial documents and submitted the same to the passport authorities for obtaining Indian Passport and acted in a manner which is unbecoming of a Government ' servant.onsubmissionoffactualinformation,the Passport Authorities have issued a notice dated lg.O7 .2}tg to the petitioner to surrender his passportwithinTdays.Thelnstitutehasalsoissued a show cause notice dated 11.09.2019 (Exhibit R-6) to the Petitioner in the matter' vi) The Review Committee has also gone through theavailableACRs/APARsandotherservicerecords andfoundthatthepetitionerishavingdoubtful integrity and ineffectiveness and also found that his servicesarenolongerusefultothelnstituteand accordingly recommended to retire the petitioner PrematurelY, in Public interest' 6l.Inreplytothepara-26oftheaffidavitfiledbythe petitionerinsupportoftheabovepetition,Istatethatthe statementofthepetitionerinthesaidparathatthesaid { i 9 SN,J WP No.30225_2022 order was issued by passing the pending departmental proceedings against him is not correct as the said order wa:; not issued as a measure of punishment in view of perrding departmental proceedings against the petitioner but the same was issued on the grounds of doubtful intergrity of the petitioner and as his services are no longer useful to the Institute by following all the prescribed procedures under FR 56 ff) which speaks about compulsory retirement. Since there is no specific format, the Res;pondents have issued the said order by adopting a similar order issued by another office of Government of India in similar case. It s hard to believe that the petitioner having put in experience of more than 20 years in establishment matters in a Central Autonomous organization is expressing ignr:rance about Fundamental Rules. It is also to state that the disciplinary proceedings challenged by the petitioner in the Hon'ble Court have to be continued and concluded. 7L. In reply to the para-34 of the affidavit filed by the petitioner in support of the above writ petition, I state that as per rules/ provisions relating to pre-mature retirement in the Fundamental Rules and CCS (pension) Rules, 1972, "the Appropriate Authority has the absolute right to retire a Government servant under FR s5(j), FR 56(t) or Rute 48 (1) (b) of CCS (Pension) Rules, L9l2 as the case may be, if it is necessary to do so in public interest,,. 72. It is also to state that the Hon.ble Supreme Court in various judgements hetd that the appropraate authority has the absolute right to retire a government servant if it is of the opinion that it is in the public interest to do so. ft is also held that .,If the conduct of a government servant becomes unbecoming to the public interest or obstructs the efficiency in public services, the 10 SN.J WP No.30225-2022 Government has an absotute right to compulsorily retire such an employee in public interest". Review Committee's 73. The dulY constituted before the APProPriate recommendations were Placed Authority i.e, Executive Council of the Institute in its 123rd meeting held on 22.tO.2O2t. The Appropriate Authority/Executive Council vide resolution no.t23.29 approved the recommendations of the Review Committee and also approved to take necessary action as per the recommendations of the Review Committee. As per the approval of the Appropriate Authority/Executive Council, the Respondent no.1 has issued the order compulsorily retiring the petitioner, in public interest under FR 56(j). 74. It is submitted that as per the DoPT guidelines, there is a provision of Representation committee headed by the secretary for preferring an appeal by Govt. servants in such cases. Without exhausting the prescribed channel, the petitioner had approached the Hon'ble High court challenging the order of compulsory retirement without preferring his appeal to Appellate Authority' This order was not issued aS a measure of punishment' Hence, there is no violation of articles L4, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India and the petitioner is not entitled for full pay and allowances from 30.11.2021 i.e., from date his retirement and he is being paid monthly pension from the date of his compulsory retirement as per the rules. Also the retirement benefits as due have been paid to the official except for gratuity and leave encashment. The same will be decided based on the outcome of the' disciplinary proceedings."

5. The learned counsel aDDearino on behalf of the oetitioner mainlv outs forth the followinq submissions: f 7 7L SN,J WP No.30225_2022 (i) The order impugned is in clear violation of principles of natural justice. (ii) The order impugned had been passed without concluding the disciplinary proceedings initiated against the petitioner. (iii) On an earlier occasion petitioner had approached the Court by filing W.P.No.40607 of 2015 challenging Proceedings dated 22.06.2015, and 07.08,2015 issued by the 1't respondent and this Court passed interim orders in favour of the petitioner on 15.12.2015 vide W.P.M.P,No.52441 of 2015 in W.P.No.40607 of 2015 granting interim suspension of the said proceedings and the said interim orders are in force as on date. (iv) The 1st respondent had acted malafidely with an ulterior rlotive and bias against the petitioner and therefore the petitioner had impleaded the 1't respondent by name as 4th responde nt. (v) By passing the disciplinary proceedings without awaiting for its logical conclusion on merits and issuing the impugne,l order without issuing prior notice to the petitioner in clear violation of principles of natural justice amounts to imposing punishm,3nt on the petitioner, attaching stigma, prejudging the L2 SN,J WP No.30225 2022 subject issue, establishing the guilt of the petitioner even before it is proved through due procedure, in accordance to raw by conducting a thorough and a proper enquiry. (vi) Invocation of Rule 56 (j) is unwarranted and unsustainable Based on the aforesaid submissions learned counsel apoearinq on behalf of the petitioner contends that petitioner is entitled for the relief as oraved for in the present writ oetition.

6. Learned Government Pleader aooearinq on behatf of the respondents placinq reliance on the averments made in the counter affidavit in oarticular. para '9' mainly outs forth the following submissions: (i) The petitioner committed several irregularities and the same reflects doubtful integrity of the petitioner. (ii) The services of the petitioner are no longer useful to the Institute. (iii) The Order impugned had been issued to the petitioner by following all the prescribed procedure under FR (' 13 sN.l wP No.30225_2022 56(j), in Public Interest, after due approval of the Appropriate Authority/Executive Counsel. (iv) The petitioner without exhausting the remedy of appeal belbre the Appellate Authority i.e., the Representation Committee headed by the Secretary approached this Court straight away and hence the present writ petition is not ma inta ina trle. (v) The Review Committee had reviewed performance of 27 Group B & C level staff of the Respondent Institute and recommended for retaining 26 staff members. But the Review Committee: had recommended for compulsory retirement of the petitioner in public interest, on the grounds of doubtful integrity and on the ground that petitioner's services are no longer useful to the institute and not as a measure of punishment. Based on the abo said submissions, the learned Government Pleader apoearinq on behatf of the Igspsnqgnts contended that the writ oetition needs to be dismissec!= DI USSIO AND CONCLUS ION:

1.4 Sl,l,J wP No.30225_2022 ..

7. As rightly observed by this court in its order dated 2L.07.2022 passed in the present w.p.No.3ozzs of 2022 at the admission stage and a bare perusat of the record indicates that the order impugned dated 30.11.202t had been passed by the 2nd respondent without recording any reasons and without even indicating the public interest involved in issuing the order impugned by the 2nd respondent. It is not in dispute that the disciplinary proceedings had been initiated against the petitioner way back in the year 2oL2 and subsequently another charge memo was issued by the 2nd respondent in the year 2015 vide charge Memo dated 22.o6.20ls framing t2 charges again. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner had filed w.p.No.40607 of 2015 challenging the proceedings issued to the petitioner dated

22.06.2015 and 07.08.2015 and this court vide its order dated L5.L2.20L5 passed in w.p.M.p.No.52441 of 2015 in w.P.No.4o607 of 2015 granted interim suspension in favour of the petitioner and the said w.p.No.40607 of 2ot5 is pending final adjudication on the file of this Court.

8. A bare perusal of the said orders dated t5.L2.2015 passed in w.P.M.P.No.sz44l of 2015 in earlier w.p.No.40607 of 2015 filed by the petitioner indicates a clear observation of this court observing that denova enquiry had not taken place in a bonafide / / 15 SN,] wP No.30225-2022 manner ernd a decision was not taken by the disciplinary authority.

9. This Court opines that when the disciplinary proceedings initiated against the petitioner admittedly even according to the respondents had not attained finality and without enquiry being conducted as per due procedure in accordance to law, in conformity with principles of natural justice, by providing an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitaoner, the order impugned admittedty had been passed hastily without any justification except stating that the impugned proceedings of the 2nd respondent had been issued under Rule 56(j) of the Fundamental Rules and in public interest and the order impugned dated 3O.11.2021- ot the 2nd respondent being bereft of reasons, this Court oDines that thouqh ental Rule 56(i) contem lates th F resoonctents have an absolute rioht to retire a Government x rcts n u n the o er imDuq ed fails to atisfv the nderlvinq st of servinq the interest of the oublic. This Court ooines that the same had been oassed to short-circuit the disciolinarv I i i i t I I I ! I I I I ! t ( I t i I I I t t 16 SN,J WP No.30225_2022 Broceedinos oendino aqainst the petitioner in order to ensure oetitioner's immediate removal. Neither the material on record nor the counter affidavit indicates the reasons to invoke the oublic interest doctrine to comoulsorilv retire the oetitioner resortinq to fundamental riqht 56(i), since the service record of the petitioner indicates that the petitioner had been subjected to disciplinarv oroceedinqs in the year 2O12, 2O15 and also in the year 2O19, but however, the deoartmental oroceedinqs initiated against the petitioner by the disciplinarv authoritv under CCS (CCA Rules) 1965 had not been concluded even as on date.

10. The Aoex Court in the Judqment "CAPTAIN PRAMOD KUMAR BAJAJ v: UNION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER,,, reported in (2023) Volume 11 Suoreme Court Cases, paoe 466 at paraqraph No.42 dealinq with a case of compulsorv retiiement observed as under: "42. Dehors the aforesaid allegations of institutional bias and malice, having perused the material placed on record, we find merit in the other grounds taken by the appellant. It is noticed that though FR 56(i) contemplates that the respondents have an absolute right to retire a government servant in public interest and such an order I / L7 SN,] WP No.30225-2022 could have been passed against the appellant any time after he had attained the age of fifty years' the respondentsdidnottakeanysuchdecisiontilltheveryfag end ,f his career. The impugned order of compulsory retirernent was passed in this case on 27-9-2019 whereas the appetlant was to superannuate in ordinary course in Janu;rry 2020. There appears an apparent contradiction in the approach of the respondents who had till as late as in July 2llg continued to grade the appellant as .,out:Standing,,andhadassessedhisintegrityas''Beyond doutrt". But in less than three months reckoned therefrom' the respondents had turned turtle to arrive at the conc:lusionthathedeservedtobecompulsorilyretired.If the appellant was worthy of being continued in service for little short of a decade after he had attained the age of 50 years and of being granted an overall grade of 9 on the scdre of 1-10 on 3l-7-20t9 it has not been shown as to wh;rthadtranspiredthereafterthatmadetherespondents resorttoFR56(j)andinvokethepublicinterestdoctrineto pulsorily retire him with just three months of service for his retirement, in routine' In such a case' this lef': I I I I tI g I ! i :: i * i' t i t; : t I : < ' ,J I 18 , SN,J WP No.30225_2022 the public."

11. case, A) The aforesaid facts and circumstances of the B) The submissions made by the rearned counser appearing on behalf of the petitioner and the learned Government preader appearing on beharf of the respondents, c) The contents of the order impugned dated 3o.11.2021 issued by the 4th respondent (referred to and extracted above), D) The averments in the counter affidavit filed by the respondents herein, in particular, relevant paras g,6!, 7L, 72, 73t 74 (referred to and extracted above), E) The order dated rs.r2.2o15 passed in favour of the petitioner vide wpMp No.s2441 of 2ors in an earlier wP No.4o6o7 of 2o15 filed by the petitioner and the said orders being in force as on date, --7 19 SN,] WP No.30225-2022 F) 'fhe Interim orders dated 27"07 '2022 passed in the present W.P'No' 3C,225 of 20.22 which had been extendedpendingfurtherordersvideorderofthisCourt datedog.oS.2o24andwhichisinforceasondate (referred to and extracted above), G) The observations in the iudgment of the Apex Court (referred to and extracted above)' H)Thediscussionandconclusionasarrivedat from paras 5 to 1O of the present order' The writ petition is allowed. The impugned proceedings dated 30.1 t.2O2L issued bY the 4th respondent is set aside and the respondents are directed to pay fr'rll salary to the petitioner from 30'11'2O21 and continue to PaY the same regularlY every month till However, there shall be no order petitioner's retirement' as to costs. Miscellaneous Petitions, if anY, p_end.ing shall stand //TRUE One Fair Copy to the Hon'ble MRS JU (For Her Ladyships Kind Sd/.M.OSMAN ALI BAIG T REGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER ALLI NANDA closed To,

1. Thr> Director, National lnstitute for the Empowerment of Persons with lntellectual Disabilities (Divyangjan), Manovikas Nagar, Secunderabad - 500 009 II I t 4 x * { t I i i l i i I I I I !

2. The Director, PT Deendayal Upadhyaya lnstitute for the Physically Hindicapped (Under Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment) Government of india, 4 Vishnu Digamber Marg, New Delhi 110 002.

3. The Secretary, Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment, Department of Social Justice and Empowerment, New Delhi, Union of lndia.

4. 11 LR Copies 5. The Under Secretary, Union of lndia, Ministry of Law, Justice and Company Affairs, New Delhi.

6. The secretary, Telangana Advocates Association, Library, High court Buildings, HYderabad.

7. One CC to SRI P.V.KRISHNAIAH, Advocate IOPUC] 8. One CC to SRI P.PANKAJ REDDY, Advocate [OPUC] 9. One CC to SRI B.JITHENDER, SC FOR CENTRAL GOW. [OPUCI 10.Two CD CoPies RYPMK 4lL.BS CC TODAY HIGH COURT DATED i 3011012025 \ ORDER WP.No30225 of 2022 'l-Litr cr tr.Ll) t OR 1 5 nPB ?ft}fr ,: \A- tf? a { { ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION, WITHOUT COSTS \^ €