N. lvlalva v. '1 . The State of Telangana

Petition under Section 151 cPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the peiition, tne High Court may be pleased to .r.p""J the operation oi th" irprgn.d proceedings No Al /6138/3DlPPOl2O18-7 ' dt.2'9.08.2018 pending of the above writ petition / lA NO: 1 oF 2018 Between: 1 2 3 - | re angana, Rep.by tis _Secretary, Finance. (/rdrrin_t), I!: ^Sl,]1,, uepart,rr)'. Se:retariat Buiidin'gs, Secretariii, HyieiJba,t. -freasurv The Diret;t:r of Buildinrl a I. js. l-Jydeps[1ad - 500 O0i . I?3#;;:'' :3li'd3^'"'"t Director, Pension Pavnrent Crrice, rVr J.Road, and Ac^co_unts, Government of Telargana, lnsurance AND N. Malya. ! 16/P/D/28, Si l?; 1l B,i,i:?;,0,'r* S,1 J"^?ji;,3fi?E[S i;;IJ?:i,,y", u,, - ...PETITIONERS,/RESPONDENTS RESPONDENT/PETITIONER Petition urr l: r Section 151 CpC praying that in the cir.ums,tances stated in .fired r sLrpport of the p"iirion, inu Hrgn court rna,, be preased to the- affidavit vacate the interirn r-de" dt:03.12,2018 in W.p-f.fo.+a708 of 2013 Counsel for the peritioner: SRl. A BHUVAN SUNDER REDDY Counsel for the Res;pondents: Gp FOR FINANCE pLANNING The Court macle the fotlowing: ORDER a \ 1 wp_43708_2018 N8K, J THEHON' BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMA PAKA WRTT PETITIONNo 43708 of 2018 ORDER: The Petitioner is a Junior Accountant in the Ofhce of Joint Director' Pension Payment Office, Narayanguda, Hyderabad' It is submitted that while petitioner was working as Senior cashier, o/o.Motigally, Hyderabad' 3'd respondent has issued an Article of Charge' through Charge Memo dated 19.02.2004 framing sole charge against the petitioner for which he have submitted his written statement of defense denying the charges framed against him and requested to drop the charges' Subsequently, an Inquiry Officer and presenting Officer were appointed and the Commissioner of enquires has submitted enquiry report and basing on the said enquiry report, a show cause notice was issued and respondent no'3 has issued final orders imposing punishment of CENSURE and recovery of Rs.1,340/-, the same was implemented and the amount has been fully recovered from the petitioner' It is fufiher submitted that while the matters stood thus, respondent no'3 has issued present proceedings No.A I /6 1 3 8/J D IPP O I 2018-7, dated 29'08'20 1 8' imposing punishment of stoppage of one increment with cumulative effect by revising the final orderofpunishmentinproceedingsNo'K/A1/8022-4lJDlPPOl2}01-2010' dated 30.09.2010, wherein the punishment of CENS[IRE and recovery of amount was alreadY imPosed'

2. Mr. A. Bhuvan Sundar Reddy, leamed counse[ for the petitioner submitted that this Court in W'P'No'43697 of 2018 has dealt with similar circumstances and vide order dated OZ'04 '2025 allowed the same duly I I 2 wp_43708_2018 NBK, J setting aside tlr,: ru pugnsd order dated 29.og.2o1g.In r icu, of the same, similar ordel r n,, b,: passed even in this writ petition. 3' This ( 'r ' i. w.p.No.4369r of 20rg has consider.c-J )hrre position and passed a c t, ailr:d order. Hence, in view of the sr-rbnri ;sirxrs ;166. 6, leamed cour're br rhe petitioner, this writ petition is allo,verl in terms of the above si.io l lo The impugned order dated 29.01j.201 1r is accordingry set aside. No (,)rts. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any shall stand closed- t r- I lrat Rule Nisi has been made absolute as alcorre. Witness the Hon'ble th{) Acting Chief Justice SUJOY pAUL, orr this Friday ,The Secorrl D,ry Of May Two Thousand And Twenty [:ivr-, To, \ //TRUE COPY// Al SD/. T.TIRUMALA DEVI DEPUTY REGISTRAR SE:CllON OFFICER The Secrt:t:rr ,. Finance, (Admin-l). Department, Secretariat ll I ier,tbad. *J.,, tariat tsu ldrngs,

2. The Director f Tr€rasury and Accounts, Government of Te ang,,rna, Insurance tsuilding. ,\l:i, i. tvderabad - 500 00.,l .

3. The Joint Dir,:::or. O/o.Joint Director, pension payment O1fir;e, M.J.Road, Hyderabad :( C 001.

4. One CC to S Ft . A BHUVAN SUNDER REDDY Advocate [OplrC] 5. Two CCs tc :i,) FrlR FINANCE PLANNING,High court fo. rhe State of Telangana. lO. Tl

6. Two CD C:opre I (Along with the c : r y of the order dated 02.04.2025 in Wp. NO. 4 36)t of 201 8) KKS (r - - 'rt*,k'"} t:--i

1..a HIGH COL'RT NBK,J DATED:02lo5l:?025 ORDER WP.No.437}tl ctl 2018 _,a= :1H :i i' cr1 ,)' 3 0 i,l' 2L[5 a,:.i'. ..),. ALLOWING T'HE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT C(]STS ---4 10 i I l l I I I I i i I I i l i I I I i i I l 7 wp_43697_2018 NgK,I TIIE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA WRIT PETTTION No.43697 of20l8 ORDER: ThepetitionerisaSeniorAccountantintheoflceofAssistant pension Payment offrcer. on the allegation that he has not followed the procedures prescribed under the A.P. Treasury Code, while he was a Junior Accountant in the year 2004, resutting in fraudulent withdrawals of Rs.10,0521, a Charge Memo dated 19'02'2004 was issued' After departmental enquiry a punishment of Censure and recovery of Rs.19,0151 was imposed by Order dated 30'09'2010' The petitioner had undergone the punishment. Thereafter, basing on the Memo dated 03.08.2017 and also the Memo dated 21.07'2018 of respondent No'2- Director of Treasury and Accounts, the earlier punishment was revised by Order dated 29.08.2018, and the punishment of "Stoppage of one increment with cumulative effect" was imposed. Petitioner challenges the same as illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the Rule 20 of APCS (CC&A) Rules, 1991. 2. Heard Mr. A. Bhuvan Sundar Reddy, learned counsel lor the petitioner; and learned Govemment Pleader for Services-Ill. Perused the record.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner, while making submissions on the lines of writ affidavit, contends that the petitioner had already suffered the punishment imposed vide Order dated 30.09.2010, and the authorities after about eight years sought to revise the punishment and impose a new punishmentforthesameoffenceforwhichthepetitionerhadalready undergone the punishment earlier amounts to double jeopardy' Further' 2 wp_43697-2018 NBK, J , there is no i I c,u Cause notice to the petitioner. be 1ore revising the punishment. ar,l tf erefore the action of the authorities rrr dt,r order dated 29.08.2018 rs cgi land arbitrary 4' Lealrc< ( i'rr emment preader, basing on the counkrr af ridavit, would essentiall\ c.ir r .ud that the Government is empowered u rd,,rr Rure 40 of APCS (C(' c\: 1 I{rrles, 1991, to re'ise a punishment rvrtiri. lour years.rro motut. Learnc:d . rp fufther submits that the Government vi.c Merno dated 26'05'201511^ t rro.ing the Memo dated 20.05.2013) ordcr:d to review the punishments ']r rirpect of the emproyees invorved in r'aurrrrle,t drawing of pensions. [t irs rr so contendecr that the authority courpetdr rt to review the punishment rr-: . . r,ither enha,ce, decrease, modily. ()1. sr)t aside the pu,ishment .ir. ul1 irnposccl and therefore there is no ilte,3ality in the irnpugned orrlc . r arr:d 29.08.20 I g.

5. It is pertrr,,:lt to note that on the allegation that the ltt:tit oner did not perform duc tlrlil enc e rvhile performing the duties of -Iuni.r- .A,.;countant, as a result ol rvhi;, ft.udulent withdrawals to the tune of I..;,ir),052/_ have taken placc. c sciplinary proceedings ensued, culmirratrng in the punishment c- ' ( ,srrre and rccovery of Rs.r9,0r5/-. whire sr , after eight years, the intpL 1rre,1 punishment of stoppage of one itrcr.ement with cumulativc :l'li', s,as irnposed under the revisionary lrovrers of the Government un,l: - I{ule 40. l i i i i I ; i 6 At this .i -r rt tur,:, it is relevant to refer to Rule 40(l )(ir .) ( f the ApCS (CC&A) Rules. i ricrr reads as follows: "any otherr rlrrthority specified in this behalf by the Governmont by a general : - special order and within such time as may be prescribed ir such general or special order, may where a rev.ision petition is, rrr-'ferred by the Government servant within one yr-.ar of wp 43697_2018 NBK, J the date of receipt by him of the order sought to be revised, and in cases where no such revision petition is preferred within four years of the date of the order proposed to be revised, either suo motu or otherwise and after calling for the records of any inquiry and examination, revise and order of penalty made under these rules or under the rules repealed by Rule 45, after consultation with Commission where such consultation is neiessary. The said authority may exercise the power suo motu within four years from the date of issue of order of penalty by the competent authority or within one year of the date of receipt of the petition either confirm or reduce or set aside the order of penalty or any other order already issued, and where it is proposed to enhance the penalty, such authority may exercise the power within four years from the date of receipt of the petition and revise any order made under Rule 45 after consultation with the Commission where such consultation is necessary and..." 7 Furlher, Rule 40(1)(iv)(d) stipulates as follows: Provided further that no order imposing or enhancing any penalty shall be made by any revising authority unless the Government servant concerned has been given a reasonable opportunity of making a representation against the penalty proposed and where it is proposed to impose any of the major penalties specified in Rule 9 or to enhance the minor penalty imposed by the order sought to be revised to any of the major penalties and if an inquiry under Rule 20 has not already been held in the case, no such penalty shall be imposed except after inquiring in the manner laid down in Rule 20, subject to the provisions of Rule 25 and except after consultation with the Commission, where such consultation is necessary:

8. Having considered the respective submissions and perused the record, it is to be noted that the inquiry proceedings under Rule 20 have been conducted before imposing the initial punishment of Censure and 4 wa 43697 201A NBK, J recovery ('1 lli.I (t,052r-. Rule 40(1)(iv) envisages thar trre competent authority ,ra v ' rvir:rv the punishment either suo morlt or. ,th eru,ise within four years' ar( l ot eight years as has been done in the i,stl nt case. Furtheq the punishrnrr r o1- stoppage of increment with cumulatrve r.rflect being a major penair.': i re same cannot be imposed rvithout afirrrlirrg r.easonable opporlunitl i, ' rral<ing a representation by the G(r\ errlne.lt seryant as conternplaLr:r: r r lcr Rule a0( l)(iv)(d). 9' AccorLli'r! I,v, ttre writ petition is ailowed, and the rnlrugned order dated 29.08.1'rl ll is set aside. No costs. Misceilaneous periliorrs pending, if any, shall stancr . [,ts:d. 02"d April, .202:; NAGESH BI]f E]\,IAPAKA, J