High Court · 2025

Order

The Petitioner is a Junior Accountant in the Offrce of Assistant Pension Payment Offrcer, Panj agutta' It is submitted that while petitioner was working as Senior Cashier, O/o'APPO' Secunderabad' 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 def-ense denying the charges framed against him and requested to drop the charges' Subsequently' an Inquiry Officer and presenting Ofticer were appointed and the Commissioner of enquires has submitted enquiry repoft 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'19'015/-' the same was implemented and the amount has been fuily recovered from the petitioner. It is further submitted that while the matters stood thus' respondent no.3 has issued present Proceedings No'A I /6 1 3 8/JD/PPO/20 I 8 - 6, dated 29.08.2018' imposing punishment of stoppage of one increment with cumulative eff-ect by revising the final order of punishment in proceedings No.K/A1/8022-l4lJD|PPOI2OO1-2010' dated 30'09'2010' wherein the punishment of CENSURE and recovery of amount was already imPosed.

2. Mr. A. Bhuvan Sundar Reddy' learrred counsel for the petitioner submitted that this Court in W'P'No'43697 of 2018 has dealt with similar circumstances and vide order <lated 02'04 '2025 allowed the same duly I I ( 2 setting asirle rf l inpugned order dated 29.0g.2}lg sirnilar ord:r rt: I be passed even in this writ petition wp_43681_2018 NBK, J a, In .,.i:u of the same,

3. This ( cr r i^ w.p.No.43697 of 20lg has considei:e d Rule position and passed rr ,1:t,iled order. Hence, in view of the subrniss ons made by learned coun:;e I [o. the petitioneE this writ petition is ar orved in terms of the above srirl .r'cler'. The impugned order dated 29.0g.2(rl g i; accordingly set aside. |,io :c,sts Miscellaneous petitions pendine, ij';rn.,,, shall stand closed. witness the Hon'trre the Acting chief Justice suJoi.paur-, T hat Rule Nisi has been made absolute as ,lbove. Sec: rrd t)ay Of May Two Thousand And Twenty Fi,re ", it i. rrioay ,rne / SD/-T . ] IRUMALA DEVI ANT REGISTRAR AS fr Ersr- //TRUE COPYII \ To, i SEciTION OFFICER 1 2 a 4 5 *:,:3?l;1, f t,iJlfilj; (Adm i n=r), Departmenr, s\f retariat B ( ird in ss, Ilg-911",*t,t ,, ,nrr"r, and A^cco^unts, Government of Telerngana, lnsurance Building Atri:s. H,rdera'baO _ SOb-bOil' [?3"',"#.oI:l)Bt3/o Joint Diiector' Pension Pavment orfice M J Road, One QC to -qUt A Bf-tUVAN $UNDEB BEDDYAdvocate ICp(,Cl Two CCs tc, 1;1: t r* FTNANCE pLANNlNG,High Telangan2 11;1 11, Court for I he State of 6 KKS Two CD C opie s C, ,, \ fi- *-..*L-ir:l9.---,_ * ' .. '' '.1,|ll'1 .l .rti.g*-' --..{.:-ffi HIGH COL'FIT DATED:021(15t2025 l I I I l i i I ORDER WP.No.43681 of Z01B 'fii;Fl;; { /c- ,) i,-) 3[l li' i![ (,:l -i * ..i ALLOWING I'HE WRIT PETITION WTHOUT COSTS {ur ----Y - r 30\( \'.' L wP_43697 2OaA NBK,I - THE IION'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMA PAKA WRIT PETITION No.4369 7 of 2018 ORDER: The petitioner is a Senior Accountant in the Office of Assistant Pension Payment Off-rcer. On the allegation that he has not followed the procedures prescribed under the A'P' Treasury Code' while he was a Junior Accountantintheyear2004,resultinginfraudulentwithdrawalsof Rs.10,052/-, a Charge Memo dated 19'02'2004 was issued' After departmental enquiry a punishment of Censure and recovery of Rs.19,015/- 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 2l'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 Rute 20 of APCS (CC&A) Rules, 1991. 2. Heard Mr. A. Bhuvan Sundar Reddy' learned counsel for the petitioner; and learned Govemment Pleader for Serwices-Ill' Perused the record. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioneq 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 punishment for the same offence for which the petitioner had already undergone the punishment earlier amounts to double jeopardy' Furtheq 2 R wp-43691_2O1A NBK, i there is ur i, I *r Cause notice to the petitioner befi,re revising the punishme,:. a r< therefore the action of the authorities .nde. order dated 29.08.2018 r,. lt :qal and arbitrary. 4' Lea.r.d ' .r':r'rment preader, basing on the countr,r aflidavit, would essentially c.r 1r nd that the Government is empowered u,dr.,r Rule 40 of APCS (CC A .\ Rrrles, I991. to revise a punishment rvitlri r l,rur vears sro motu' Lean'rctl r 'r) urther submits that the Govemment vire r\4emo dated 26-05.2015 (b1 ..uo1i,g the Memo dated 20.05.2013) orderrd .o review rhe punishments in ':sp:ct of the employees involved in fiaurluler.rt drawing of pensions. It j., : I so contended that the authority competcnt t{) rcview the punishrnent rr rr either enhance, decrease, modify, or s(.rt aside the punishmenr air:i cly irnposed and therefoie there is no i,le1.1alit1, in the impugned or.dt:r rateC 29.0g.201 g. 5' It is p':rri r( nr ro note that on the alregation that the,etitroner did not perlorm duc dil':rr':rce whire performing the duties of Junior r\<,countant, as a result of utir It rii:udulent withdrawals to the tune of Its.1(r,052/_ have taken place, ,lriciplinary proceedings ensued, culminating in the punishruent.l ('.nsrre and recovery of Rs. 19,015/_. While sc, atter eight years, the i,rprri nerr punisrrment of stoppage of one irLcr()mcnt with cumulative r:t l'e: r u as imposed under the revisionary pov..ers of the Government r nctt. Rrrle 40. 6 At this,ir.rr l rrrt,, i[ is relevant to refer to Rule 40(1)(rv) o I the ApCS (CC&A) Rulcs. ,rlriclrreads as follows: "any other at thority specified in this behalf by the Governrnent by a general or s[)ecial order and within such time as ma,y be prescribecl ir.t su(:h general or special order, may where a revrsion petition is preferred by the Government servant within one yelr of 3 wp 43697 2018 NBK,I - 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 othenvise 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 nebessary' 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..." Further, 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 I or to enhance the minor penalty imposed by the order sought to be revised to any of the maior 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: 7

8. Having considered the respective submissions and perused the record,itistobenotedthattheinquiryproceedingsunderRule20have beenconductedbeforeimposingtheinitialpunishmentofCensureand 4 wp 43697_2018 NBK, J ..:.tzii recovery ol Fr' l00521-. Rule 40(1)(iv) envisages th.t the competent authority rla\ ':\ ierv the pu.ishment either suo motu ot cthr.:rwise within four years. rrLd r rt r:ight years as has been done in the ins:a:lt r)ase. Further, the punish.c, rf r;toppage of increment with cumulativr: e ffect being a major pena 1,.. ll o !,ame cannot be imposed without affor,1ing reasonable opporlunity Lrl rtal.ing a representation by the Gor,.erlrnrerrt servant as contemplatcd u r r ler Rule a0( 1)(iv)(d). 9. Accordir.i: r,, the writ petition is allowed, and the inJrugned order dated 29.08.2() rt i5 ;s1 aside. No costs. Miscellaneous petit.or s pe.ding, if any, shall stirn,l (.oscd. 02'd April, ?0.2 i NAGESH BHEE}IAPAKA, J