High Court · 2025

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances statect in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to declare that G.O.tt/s.No.51 Transport, Roads and Buildings (VlG) Dept., dated 24.05.2012 issued by the Govt. purporting to impose the penalty of with-holding entire pernsion and Gratuity Permanently on the deceased applicant is illegal, arbitrary, violative of Articles 14,16 and 21 of the Constitution of lndia and also contrary to the judicial pronouncements to the effect that the departmental enquiry could not have been conducted on the very same set of charges once the incumbent is aquitted by the Criminal court on merits in accordance with the Hon'ble Supreme Cburt Judgment in No.(2006) 5 Supreme court cases 446 in between G.M Tank vb state of Gujarat and others and the Honble Supreme Court of lndia reported in 2013 (1) Decisions Today (SC 378, dt. 14.08.2013 i.e., State of Jarkhand vs Jitender Kumar Sreevastava and other and pass directions to the 1st respondent to release all sort of terminal benefits i.e., service pension, Death cum retirement Gratuity, encashment of E.L. funeral charges family pension w.e.f. 07.01.2015 onwards. Amendment is carried out, as per the orders of the Tribunal, dt.2710112016 in M.A.2849/15 in O.A.9582112. lA NO: 1 OF 2024 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 Respondent to implement the interim orders dt. 06.12.2O12 passed by the erstwhile A.P. Administrative Tribunal for sanction of Provisional Pension" from 1.7.2007 onwards in O.A. No. 9582 ot 2012 dt. 4.12.2012 (now re'.numbered as 135 (TR) ol 2017) on eve retirement of the deceased petitioner on attaining the age of 58 years on superannuation since the departmental enquiry commenced even after Hon'ble acquittal in C-C. No. '146 of 2002 dl. 22.09.2OO5 by the 1st Class Magistrate. Tandur and pending as on 24.05.2012 in compliance to this Hon'ble Division Bench Judgment in W.P. No. 27607 of 2009 dl. 28.1.20'10 headed by Hon'ble Justice V.Eswaraiah and Hon'ble Justice VilasV. Afzulpurlcar and also Judgment in W.P.No. 25501 of 20i9 in Dr. B.Nehru Vs the T.S.dt 30.6.2023 headed by Hon'ble Smt. Justice Juwadi Sridevi garu along with interest of 18% p A for derayed payment of retirar benefits of Provisionar pension f rom 1 .7 -2007 to ti, the finar disposar of this 'nwards w'P'(TR) and rerease of Funerar charges- on eve of death of the petitioner on 06'01'2015 arong with interest of 1o% p.A. and also riabre the 2nd Respondent i e the Engineer-in-chief (R&B) & Administration. Hyderabad be murcted with costs of Rs"25 000/- to be paid to the widow of the deceased petitioner in compriance to the Judgment in w.p.No. '15812 0f 2017 dr. 14.3.201g in case of B'V'Koteswar Rao Vs state of rerangana headed by Hon,bre Justice Sri p Naveen Rao garu. Counsel for the petitioner: SRI p.MANOH|R Counsel for the Respondent No.1 to 3: Gp FOR SERVICES-I counser for the Respondent No.4 & 5: SRr R.vrNoD REDD', sc FOR TSS'D.L The Court made the following: ORDER ':.: :!+:'q€-. i "'," /.:"' THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE T.MADHAVI DEVI W.P(TRI .NO. 135 0F 2017 ORDER: In this vrit petition, the petitioner is challenging the order of imposition of penalty of withholding of entire pension and Gratuity permanently of the deceased employee vide G.O.Ms.No.51 l'ransport, Roads and Buildings (VIG) Department dated 24.05.2012 as illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional and also as contrary to the judicial pronouncements to t-he effect that the departmental enquiry could not have been conducted on the very same set of charges after acquittal of similar charges by the Crimirral court and consequently to set aside the same and direct tlre respondent No.1 to release all the termina-l benehts i.e., service pension Death cum retirement Gratuity, encashment cf E.L., funeral charges, family pension w.e.f'

07.01.2015 onwards and to pass such other order or orders in the interest of j ustice.

2. Brief facts leading to the filing of the present writ petition are that the petitioner Sri N. Srisailam was initially appointed in.{.P.State Electricity Board as a Helper in the year lg7}. Thereafter, he claims to have discontinued his employment in the then Electricity Board and got his name ./\ 2 TMD,J w.4Tr).No.135 of 20tz registered in the employment exchange and his name was sponsored by the employment exchalge for appointment as LDC and he was appointed as LDC w.ith the respondents in the yehr 1978. It is submitted that subsequently, he was promoted to various posts and ultimately he was working as Deputy Executive Engineer (R&B), NH Sub Division, Sadasivpet, Medak District. When a news item was published in the newspaper that the petitioner was working in the two places i.e., in the A.p.State Eiectricity Board and aiso in the Government Service for the past twenty two years. In view of the said report, a crimina-l case i.e., CC.No. 146/2OO2, was registered against the petitioner before the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Tandur, Rangareddy District and disciplinar5z proceedings were also initiated against him by the respondent organization. It was alleged that the petitioner was relieved from Sadasivpet and he submitted his joining report before the Executive Engineer (R&B) Division, Siddipet on O9.O7.2OO1, but the petitioner was not allowed to work. It is further submitted that the petitioner submitted his joining report again on 25.07.2OO1 and obtained a_n acknowledgement and thereafter, vide proceedings dated 16,08.2OO1, the petitioner was kept under suspension, but he was not paid any sr.rbsistence allowance ald vide memo dated I l L I I E &-,-- a 3 TMD,J w.PlTr).No.13s oJ 2017

16.08.2002, it was proposed to hold an enquiry against the petitioner and a charge sheet was served against the petitioner ald the petilioner claims to have submitted his written explanation on 23.09.2002 and thereafter, the departmentai enquiry was rronducted. it is submitted that even before an enquiry was conducted, the Criminal Court vide judgment dated

22.OT.2OOS ac,quitted him from all charges arrd the sarne was brought to the notice of the department, but the departmental enquiry was concluded holding the charges as provecl against the petitioner and the Disciplinary authority has imposed the punishment of penalty of withholding of the entire pension and gratuity permanently. The petitioner had attained the age of superanmration on 30.O6.2007' It is submitted that the petitioner has made severa,l representations for re-consideration of his case in the light of the acquittal in the Criminal Case and that there was no evidence whatsoever to prove that the petitioner har; worked in both departments simultaneously. However, the same was not considered and therefore, the petitioner hled O.A.No.95B2 of 2Ol2 before the Tribunal and on abolition of th.e Tribunal, the same has been transferred to this Court and it is renumbered as W.P.(Tr).No.135 of 2017. -a- ' I 4 .IMD,J w. P(Trl. No. t 3s o1. 20 1 7

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioner was initially appointed as a Helper in the Electricity Department in the year 1970 and thereafter, he was appointed in the Roads and Building Department in 197g and worked thereunder up to the age of retirement i.e., on 30 .06.2007 . It is submitted that the allegation that the petitioner worked in two posts for 22 years is absolutely false and baseless. He submitted that the distance between these two places is eighty kilometers and it was humanly impossible for a person to be traveiling between those two places and working in dual roles for a period of twenty two years. It is further submitted that all these facts ald the evidence produced by the respondents have been considered by the Criminal Court to hold that there was no evidence that the petitioner has worked in both places at the same time for 22 years. It is further submitted that without taking the evidence considered by the Criminal Court into consideration, t1le disciplinar5r proceedings have concluded holding that the petitioner is guilty and have imposed the punishment of the penalty of withholding the entire pension and gratuity permanently. It is submitted that even during the course of suspension, the petitioner was never paid the subsistence allowance, which is in violation of Service Rules \ 5 TMD'J w.qTr).No.135 oJ 20t7 as well as the principles of natural justice and for this reason also the proceedings are vitiated'

4. Lealned counsel for the petitioners placed reliance upon the dec.Lsion of this Court in W'P'No' 1463 3 of 2O2O in support of his contention that where departmental proceedings have been init.iated/instituted a-fter the lapse of four years from the date on rvhich the event of misconduct had taken place' such proceedings are not sustainable' He further place<l reliance upon the judg;ment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Capt.M.Paul Anthony Vs. Bharat Gold Mines Limited and Anotherl, for the proposition that when a person is acquitted of the Criminal Case and on the very salne set of facts if the departmental proceedings were also initiated, then the judgment in the Criminal Case should be considered while disposing of the departmental Proceedings.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners has also hied the written argunlents in support of his oral arguments'

6. L,:arned Government Pleader for Services-I, on the other hand, supported the contentions raised in the counter affrdavit frled by the respondent No.3 stating that the details of L ltsosl g# ozo 6 TMO,J w.47:rl.No.t3s ol20r7 the petitioner are recorded in the service books of both the department and on comparison of the service books of the petitioner from the Electricity Department and a,lso from the R&B Department, it was observed that the petitioner was appointed as a Helper with the Electricity Department w-e.f.

08.04. 1970 and his services were regularized on 23.05.1981 and he was also promoted as a Bill Collector w.e.f.23.05. 1981 and was dismissed from service w.e.f. 28.O1.2OO4- As regards his employment with R&B Department, the petitioner was appointed as a LDC/Junior Assistant w.e.f. 03.04.1978 and his services were regularized w.e.f. 03.04.1980 and was promoted as Senior Assistant w.e.f. 02.01.1991 and has attained the age of superannuation on 30.06.2OO7 while he was still under suspension. It is also observed that he was granted automatic advancement scheme of his G.P., of Revenue Cashier and as SGP Junior Assistant, SGP Senior Assistant. It was also observed that the signatures of both the service books were tallied vide Andhra Pradesh Forensic Science Laboratories, Hyderabad, reprot vide DOC/523/2OO1, dated 29.1.1.2001. h was thus, proved beyond reasonable doubt that the petitioner has worked in both the departments at the same time. The 7 rMD'J w.PlTr).No.135 or 20t7 relevant serv:.ce books were also frled along with the counter affidavit. 7 . The Electricity Department was also impleaded as a party respon,f ent and the learned standing counsel has also frled a counter affidavit stating that the petitioner was appointed and worked as a Helper in the Electricity Department and on coming to know about his dual employment, he was dismissed from service Ln the year 2OO4. Therefore, according to him, the petitioner seems to be the employee of the Electricity Board only till 2004

8. Lr:arned Government Pleader has placecl reliance upon the following two judgments to bring out the clistinction between the Disciplinary Proceedings and the Crimina1 Proceedings and submitted that disciplinary proceedings are independent of criminal proceedings and the outcome of criminal prcceedings may not affect the disciplinary proceedings (1) State Bank of India and Others Vs. P.Zadenga2; (2) B.Yellaiah Vs. State Bank of India, Hyderabad and Othersg. 2 y)23) to scc 67s 1 a TMD,J w.P(Trl.No. tss ol2017

9. Having regard to the rival contentions and the material on record, this Court finds that it is not in dispute that the petitioner was initially appointed as a heiper in the Electricity Department and subsequently, as a Junior Assistant in the R&B Department. Though the petitioner claims to have discontinued his services on being appointed in the R&B department, his service tlook mentions otherwise. In the service book of the Electricity Department, it is mentioned that his services were regularized in the year 1981 and he continued in service till the date of dismissal i.e., in the year 2004. Though the contention of the learned counsel of the petitioner that the distance between both the places was almost 8O kms., and that it was humanly impossible for the petitioner to travel between both the destinations every day in the morning as well as in the evening, this Court is of the opinion that it may be a case of impersonation and not attending by himself. It was not the period during which the Biometrics was available and the petitioner's attendance was marked through the same every day. Though in the Criminal Court, the petitioner has been acquitted on the ground that the respondents have failed to prove that the petitioner has worked in both the departments and has thus 3 2024 l2l ALD 726 {A,P) 9 TMD'J W.FlTr).No.Bs of 2017 cheated the department, this Court is of the opinion that in the disciplinary procr:edings the preponderance of the probabilities play a major role' The contention of the respondents was that the petitioner wc'rked in both the departments simultaneously' Looking at the scenario during which the petitioner is alleged to have worked in two places, there were not enough vehicles to enable the petitioner to travel back and forth on the very same day without the people noticing or observing it' Therefore' if it is to be presume'C that the petitioner was in service of the Electricity Deparl-ment lr1l 2OO4, then the only presumption to bedrawnisthal,someotherpersonmusthaveimpersona,tedthe petitioner in the said place' However' the same has not been brought on the record and therefore' it cannot be presumed so' In the criminal case, the burden is on the respondents to prove the guilt of the accused ' Similarly' in the disciplinary proceedings a1so, burden is on the department to prove that the petitioner was involved in the offence of dual employment' As seen from the d-isciplinary authority orders' it has been held that the petitioner has failed to prove that he has not worked in both places at the same time' This is shifting the burden of proof on to the accused petitioner, which is against the principles of natural justice. Further, it is not the contention of the Electricity \ I t 10 TMD,J w.P(Tr).No. r35 oJ Zo17 Department that the petitioner has been paid salary during the period when he was working with the R&B Department. So the only inference that can be drawn is that the petitioner has discontinued his services in the Electricity Department without any intimation and without noticing the same, the said department has not only promoted him but has continued him upto the date of dismissal. It ii evident that the petitioner has worked in the R&B Department and has drawn salar5r therefrom but there is no averment by ttre Electricity Department of any payment of salary to the petitioner throughout the period. Therefore, this Court deems it fit and proper to direct the respondent No.2 to reconsider the case of the petitioner in the light of the judgment of the Criminal Court and grant his legal heirs the family pension in accordance with relevalt rules.

10. With these directions, the writ petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. 11- Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this writ petition, shall stand closed. I To, /[RUE COPYII SD/-T. TIRUMALA DEVI ASSISTANT EGI SE ION OFFICER ' *:.S,:i,:f fl ,::?:?t3fl rl6flr"r"n 2. The Engineer ln Chief (R&B) Administration, Hyderabad_500082 3. The Superintending Engineer (R & B), Karimnagar, Roads And Buirdinss (Vis' I ) Department, {{i:'' i;ffi;;il stati Transmission corporation (TRANSCo)

4. The Superintending Engineer Operations, Vikarabad' Vikarabad District - +;i-#;;; $tut. "sorirt""tti-po-*'""i -oi"t@qtiql^ co Limited (TSSPDCL)' 5. The Sub-ERO, Tandur, Telangana State Southern Power Distribution " cJ:_i,iiiJo- ii'sscocti ielJigrna state Transmission corporation (TRANSCO)

6. One CC to SRI P.MANOHER, Advocate [OPUC] 7. One CC to SRI R.VINOD REDDY, SC FOR TSSPDCL [OPUC] S.TwoCCstoGPFORSERVICES-I,HighCourtforthestateofTelanganaat Hyderabad [OUT]

9. Two CD CoPies BSR BS/ , CC TODAY -; lr.F- ST4 I4r q- J i:) t) + > 2 2 JAt'l 20m * l,a HIGH COURT DATED: 2110112025 \ ORDER WP(TR).No.135 of 2017 DtsPoslNG oF THE WRlr PETlrloN (TR), WITHOUT COSTS /4 44_ €< ,;/<-f