1. M.Bal Reddy v. The State of Telangana

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 suspend the G-O.Rt No.384' Dt'18-03-2013 and the consequential Memo issued by the 1"t respondent and Notice' dated 14'6'201 6 and 21 '11 '2016 in the interest of iustice, pending disposal of the above Writ Petition and pass such other order or orders as are deemed fit and proper in the circumstances of the case' Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI K'MADHUSUDHAN REDDY Counsel for the Respondents No'1to4&6: GP FOR REVENUE Counsel for the Respondent No'S : GP FOR SERVICES t The Court made the following: ORDER TTIE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA WRIT oN No. 440,42 of2016 ORDER: dropped. Subsequently, Petitioner No. 1 is a retired Assistant Revenue Inspector (ARI) from Atmakur, was served with a charge memo on 05 -06 -2oo2 areging collusion wit] Assistant Executive Engineer D. Ravi Kumar to maintain false records indicating rice delivery to contractors and fair price dealers and released lg5 quintals of rice instead of the sanctioned 1gO quintals. petitioner No.1 denied ttre allegations and requested the proceedings be Show-Cause Notice dated a 1O.O4.2OL2, was issued proposing a SOo/o pension cut for live years and recovery of the cost of 640 quintals of rice. Despite submitting detailed explanations, petitioner No. 1 faced a penalty under G.O.Rt.No.384 on 18.O3.2O13. On L4.O6.2O16, the cost of 640 quintals of rice was quantifie d at 1g,42,360, and recovery notices were issued. The District Treasur5r Offrce later informed the Accountant General vide Ietter d,ated 21.LL.2O16 that, despite the imposed penalties, petitioner No.1 was sanctioned full pension wittrout deductions or recovery. The Accountant General was requested to initiate recovery as per 1 \ 2 fiaxJ W.P.No.44(X2of 2016 the punishment. Aggrieved by these actions' petitioner No'l frled a writ petition chaltenging the G'O'Rt'No'384' the subsequent notices, and the failure to implement the recovery'

2. Heard Sri K.Madhusudhan Reddy, learned counsel for petitioners, learned Government Pleader for Revenue for respondent Nos.l to 4 and.6 and learned Government Pleader for Services-I for respondent No-5. Perused the record'

3. karned counsel for petitioners made submissions on the lines of writ alfrdavit and contended that during the pendency of the writ petition, petitioner No' 1 died, and his daughters were brought on record as legal representatives' [t is further submitted that the enqurry report itself was not served on the deceased writ petitioner during his lifetime; thereby' the deprived of submitting his petitioner No. 1 wa-s objections / represerrtations. Therefore, the imPugned punishment and consequential letters dAecting recovery vitiated under the law. 3 NA(J W.P. o.rta(X2 of 2016

4. Learned Government pleader for Revenue hled a counter allidavit stating that petitioner No.l is guilty of the charge of diversion of 640 quintals of rice meant for the food-for_work programme into the black market in collusion with AEE (pR) Narva. It is submitted that the Government, vide Memo dated 27 .O6.2OLL, communicated the copy of the enquiry report of tJle CEO ZPP Mahabubnagar, direcLing him to submit his representation on the frndings of the Enquiry Officer. Even after the service of the copy of the enquiry report on Og.O7.2Ol1, the petitioner No. I has not submitted any representation to the Government. Therefore, tl.e Government, vide G.O.Rt.No.3g4 dated 18.03.2Oi3, righfly imposed the punishment of a SOo/o cut in pension, besides the recovery of the cost of 640 quintals of rice from the petitioner No. 1. The Governrnent, in G.O.Rt.No.72, dated 25.O2.2OO2, 6xed the economic cost of food-for-work rice at Rs.1324 per quintal. The ,cost of 640 quintals of rice worked out to Rs.g,47,36O/_.

5. Learned Governrnent pleader for Services_I by referring to Memo dated lO.O4.2Ol2 submits that enquiry report has been ) ) 4 NB(J w.P.No-44(Xz of 2016 a served on tlxe deceased writ petitioner, prior to imposition of tJre punishment itself.

6. Considering the submissions made by both tlle learned counsel, this Court of the opinion t]rat petitioner No.l failed to substantiate claims that tJle enquiry report was not served during his lifetime, depriving him of the opportunit5r to submit objections. It may be noted tl.at the Government provided evidence of the report's delivery and the petitioner's subsequent lack of response. Therefore, there is no merit in this Writ Petition and the same is liable to be disrnissed.

7. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs. Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand closed. - t. Settltv SD REDDY /I"TRUE COPYI' I I ECTION OFEICER To,

1. ONC CC tO SRI K.MADHUSUDHAN REDDY, AdVOCAtE. TOPUC] 2. Traro CCs to GP FOR REVENUE' High Court for the State of Telangana 3 Two CCs to GP FOR SERVICES I , High Court for the State of Telangana

4. Two CD Copies BSK PVL W HIGH COURT DATED:2610612025 C 'R! r^ , ti.''\., c:..\ i? 25 stP 20tr ,li t:. 't 7,l- .9p -7',j rr -r.iir' ]-;," ORDER WP.No.44042 ot 2016 DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION W}THOUT COSTS ( 1IJ $