K.V S-S V pRASAD v. consequently direct the r"tponO"nts to sanction and release full persion

Heard Sri D.Linga Rao, learned counset appearing on behalf of the petitioner and tearned Government for Prohibition and Excise, respon dents. Pleader appearing on behatf of the 2 h as under: o er h o e ra e "...to issue a Writ, Order or a direction, more particu larly one in thr decrarins the action JJ::ff:#: r:i:,,ffi;J disciplinary proceedir t;i D i sc i p r i n a ry o,.o.u uo, n I l' ., ::i:J",, J'r"",,li:t"T i:. alreged incident pertaining to the year 2010-2072 vide Charge Memo. in Tribunal Enquiry Case No. 249/2013 dt: 26.9.2017 and further withholding full retirement and pensionary benefits on the ground of pendency of disciplinary proceedings before the lribunal for Disciplinary proceedings, as being arbitrary, illegal, vitiated by inordinate and unexplained delay, contrary to the time limit stipulated by the Government for completion of enquiries in G.o.Ms.No. 679, dt: 1.11.2008 and in Rule 20 TSCS(CC&A) Rules, 1991 and in violation of Aiticles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of I { l l I I t I I It r 1 I l 2 SN. J ,\p lllgC-2023 .eefl-sio: India and quash the same and consequently direc responderts to sanction and release full retiremenl and pensionary benefits with an intert' l8o/o per annum from the date of retirement to th(' of actual payment in the interest of justice and t<: such otht:r order or further orders as this Hon'ble may deem fit and proper in the circumstances case. " t the d full :st of r date pa ss Court cf the 3 It is spr:r:ific case of the petitioner that the petil ioner was appointed as -lunior Assistant on 74.02.t987 end was Promoted as Prohibitiorr & Excise Sub-Inspector on 04'1'l'2010 During his tenure as SLlb-Inspector' he worked in Khammam D strict from 06'07 '2072' ACB officials had t:onduct::d raids on 07.01.2010 'a the offlces of Liquor Syndicates of Khammam Town 0n relatin,,l to bribes 16l17.t2.2C\L1, in which' some documents Excise DePartment stated to have been paid to Police and Officials. Therefore, ACB addressed a letter tc the Go"/ernment to take disciplinary action against the Excise officlals leveling allegations against the petitioner stating that the pr'rtitioner had Tribunal for corrupt practices. Subsequently' the indulged ir ' proceedings had framed a r:harge vide Tribunal Enquiry Case No' 249 of 2013 dated against the Disciplinar) petitloner n a] , \ SN, J wp 33390 2023

26.09.2017.It is further the case oF the petitioner that the ACB had found no incriminating material or evidence against the petitioner, however, ACB initiated the disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner and charge dated 26-.09.2017 had been issued to the petitioner by the friOunat for Disciplinary proceedings, Telangana State, Hyderabad and the same had been pending as on date. It is further the case of the petitioner that due to pendency of disciplinary proceedings, the respondents are withholding full retirement and pensionary benefits. Aggrieved by the action of the respondents, the petitioner approached the Court by filing the present writ petition. PERUSED THE R ECo RD.

4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that in respect of Tribunal Enquiry Case No.249 of 2013, dated 26.O9.2O17 registered against the petitioner herein in the year 2013, a charge had been framed by the Tribunal for Disciplinary proceedings (TDp), dated 26.O9.201-7 against the petitioner and the Tribunal I i. tlI B 4 SN, J \\| ,1190 2021 ( Enquiry case No'249 of 2O13 had been pending as on date without anY Progress'

5. Learned (:ounsel appearing on behalf-of the petitioner further submits that although the petitioner retired from service on 31'12'2017' only provisional pension had been paid since then' and the entire pensionary benefits i'e'' fufl service pension, commutation, and gratuity have been wrongfully withheld without any iustification and therefore, the charge itself needs to be quashed' and the petitioner's case should be considered for release of entire PensionarY benef its' In support of petitioner's case' learned counsel 6. appearing on behalf of the petitioner placed reliance on the judgment of the Andhra Pradesh High Court' dated 29.Ot.2O21l passed in W'P'No'870 of 2OZ1 which refer to ChargeMemosinTECLt6l2ol'g|tg6l2oL3and1-72/2oL3 pertaining to the same incident in different places of work rerated tc, the year 2o12 (liquor syndicate CaSgS) in respect of the petitioner there under in W.p,NO.g7} Of 2o2t and r:ontends that the petitioner is entitled for the d4-- ,,' 1. 5 ,,p-33jeojil2j similar relief as extended to the said petitioner in W.P.No.g7O of ZOZL vide order, dated 29.O1 .ZO2t. 7, Learned Assistant Government pteader for Prohibition & Excise appearing on behalf ot the respondents on the other hand contends that the respondents may be directed to conclude the disciptinary proceedings initiated against the petitioner within a period of six (O6) months from the date of receipt of copy of the order and if the proceedings are not concluded for any reason within the said period of six (O6) months by the respondents, the respgndents may be directed to drop the disciplinary proceedings initiated against the petitioner.

8.7 s D n n t h o f e c ated oa. o s 36 nd n c la P.V M a e a 5 e 2 r 1 e e u r 6. Mr. prabhakar also invited our attention to the affidavit filed by the appellan t in support of his case. It is stated in para t4 of the affida vit that the responden de inte nti t u t a h il n of is D V n e h e a t e w h e r o \ 6 s hi h h o ieason for 90 ar e tTl m and that very could be the aPPellant to the post of Chief Engineer memo !\ aS pro m otin g r i SN. J \D lll90 2013 o s a c issuinc: c detain:d of lhe Housing the circumstances' we are of the oP nion that ndent to proceed further with the 11. Under allov'/ing the respo departn'enta lprocee dings at this distance of tlnle will be higher t. KerePing a the a ppellan s of corru P'tion and icial to officia I under charge ea rable merrtaI agony gritY would cause unb ed. T officer concern to the t prejud ve ry s overnrlent d isputed inte and di:;tress r r t At this stage, o emDlovees' it is neces;sa rY o draw the curtair, and top ut an end to the enquirY The aF' pellant had alreadY suffered enough and more c n accou nt of the disciP linarY Proce edings. As a matter of fact, the mental agony and suffering s of the aPPellant d Lle to th(') protracted disciPlinarY Proceed ings would be much more than the by the department in the P rocedure for initiat.ing the disciPlinarY proceedings, the aPP ella nt shoul d not be made to suffer. fi s u m n se li e ouash the t For the mista kes committe'l A xC r elow h eld tha the c u ts unistrment, v T n p cee ln s u d la i) The Court of A.P' Vs' A'Rajeswara ReddY rePorted in zoLo(3) ALD page S0l (DB) ii) t4.V.B.Jitani Vs. Union of reported in 2OO6 (S) SCC page 88. India and Others ; t I l r I I I i j ,t I I Il I 9 w 7 SN, J wp_3 3 3 90_2021 Chamnlal Goyal iii) State of punjab and Others Vs. reported in 1995 (2) SCC S70. iv) Secretary Forest Department Vs. Abdur Rasul Chowdury reported in 2OO9 (7) SCC page 3O5. v) secretary, Ministry of Defence Prabash Chandra Mirdha reported in and Others Vs. 2012 (11) scc s65.

10. a T 2 Di 4 Div o B n Be h a e o h t U t tn w.P o 2 6o n u 2 I I o o n d n a s a 1 u et a r u d o W P No 1 24 I o7 e f o e d ti o s rV s u hth a h r s f U me t n h a e 4 1a d r L T ki ha t e h o st er t f s r o o Me o a d 6 9 o 7 a b n e n r f e d t a h s o s n o T c 24 o1 r o1 d h s n e rl un n I l 5 I I t I f 8 SN. J \rt lli90 2023 n h g-82.--w r r r r v r 4 h t I r n t e 1 a) b)

2. Ta kinqi nto co nsideration:- The aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case' The submissions made by the learner! counsel apPearing on behalf of the petitioner and learned Government Pleader for Prohibition & Excise appearing on behalf of the resPondents' c) The iutlqm en th varl ous ourtsenlistedb low: t i) The observations in the judgment of Andhra Pradesh High Court, dated W'P'No'870 of 2021 vide order, dated 29.O1.2O2L, ii) rhe judgment of the Apex Court in P.V.Mahadevan Vs. MD, T,N.Housing Board, dated w I I j l l I I 9 SN, J \\p_33390 2023 O8.OB.2OO5 reported in (2O05) 6 SCC 636(referred to and extracted above) iii) The judgment of Division Bench of this court, dated 26.04.2013 passed in W.p.No.2826 of 2013. iv) The judgment of the Division Bench of this Court, dated 25.O6.2013 passed in W.p.No s.Ltzg4, to3o7, t044t & 10488 of 2013. v) The Court of A.p. \ in 2010(3) ALD pase r;r^;lJ, vi) M.V.B.Jilani Vs. Union of Jndia and Others reported in 2OO6 (5) SCC page 88. vii) State of punjab and Others Vs. Chamntal Goyal reported in 1995 (2) SCC 570. viii) secretary Forest Department vs. Abdur Rasur Chowdury reported in 2OO9 (7) SCC page 305. ix) secretary, Ministry of Defence and others vs. Prabash Chandra Mirdha reported in 2Ot2 (11) SCC s65. t-ara Reddv reported Th itio ts Char d 2 2 e ed or an T P AI t I / ,I I I 10 SN. ] ,.\ t lllgl 2021 t on er ln r H of T EC r r 4 o 3 s t Miscella neous petitions, if anY' Pending in ihis Writ Petition, shall stand closed ' /ITRUE COPY// SD/.P. P t?Hoi.i"-Et'EFRRX / Sei::rtot',t oFFlcER ! To. \ HYderabad DeveloPnren DePartmer 1 r he Stat e of Ie I a n s9 n a're'lJ"YJ[,?ii: ili5::,".T5" " Re vt'r n ue (Excise ) ' 2. The Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise' State of Telanl;ana' Nampally' 3. The Trrbuna for Disciplinary Proceedings' rept by its Secretary' Nampally' 4. The Deputy Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise" Wara-lgal Division' 5. The Accountant General" Telangana State' Hyderabad' 6. One CC to SRI D LINGA RAO Advocate [OPUCI TTwoCCstcGPFoRSERV|CESlll,HighCourtfortheStateo{Telangana HYderabad Wara ngal 8 One CC to I\4.MURALI KRISHNA S C FOR A.G 9. Two CD CoPies \ DD BS T I / -::: ==_-\- !i l^_ s Tlt - r+ ,.1- | .'Ds (r 2 2 l{[\ llffi q J o rJ \ i, \., HIGH COURT DATED:27103t2025 ORDER WP.No.33390 of 2023 WRIT PETITION IS ALLOWED In/ITHOUT C)OSTS I I 6 7,\