B. Uma Devi v. '1 . The State of Telangana

the affidavit filed in support oi tnu p"iition, irre High Court may be pleased- to susoend the operation ot tne impugnLd proceedings No.A1/61 38iJD lPPOl2O18-4' dt. i9.08.2018 pending of the above writ petition lA NO: 1 OF 2019 Between: tir Secretary, Finance. (/\c rnir_t) IP^Sll: I 'elangana,Iqp,py uepartne-'t l)e6r'g[3ri21 Buildings, Secretaribt, Hyderaba 1. The Direcl,t ' f Treasury and Accounts, Governmenl of T,ll.ln( tana. Insurance Building. /.r , r ; Frydera-bad - 500 001. ' The Joint t,)i - Hyderabad !00 C01. ) rtor, O/o.Joint Director, pension payment Off ice,, M.J.Road, ...PETITIONE RIJ/TI.ESPONDENTS 1 2 3 AND B. Uma {)::v . .tVrr,. S. Janardhan Reddy, Aged. 57 years. Ocr . Govt. Service, R/o. 2-1!6, 1 Iianuman Sai Nagar Colohy, Eppri ff'V.t""r"r,,a ...RESPOND ENIT/PETITIONER Petition rrn'r :' Section '151 cpc praying that in the circLr nr sl,r nces stated in the affidavit fiie':cr i' srrrt.* the_ peiitron, ir'" Higr' court nay L" pr.rrlJ t" vacate the inte'inr rr-de" dt: 03.12.20'18 in r.A.No.1"of 2018 i. w p l.r" +ii+e or 2018 ^o^f Counsel for the P,etiriorrer: SRl. A BHUVAN SUNDER REDDY Counsel for the Rter;r:ondents: Gp FOR FINANCE PLANNING The Court made the I'ollowing: ORDER \ 1 wp 43743-2ora NBK,I THEHON'BLE SRI JUSTI CE NAGESHBHE WRIT PETITION No. 43743 of 2018 EMA PAKA ORDER: The Petitioner is a Junior Accountant in the Office of Joint Director' Pension Payment Office, Tamaka' Hyderabad- It is submitted that while petitioner was working as Junior Assistant, o/o.Malakpet, Hyderabad, 3,d respondent has issued an Article of Charge, through Charge Memo dated lg.O2.2OO4 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' 15'892 /-' the same was implemented and the amount has been fu[y recovered from the petitioner. lt is further submitted that while the matters stood thus' respondent no.3 has issued present proceedings No'A 1/6 1 38iJD/PPO/20 i 8 - 4, dated 29.08'2018, imposing punishment of stoppage of one increment with cumulative effect by revising the final order of punishment in proceedings No'K/A1/8022 -l2lIDlPPOlzO01-2010' dated 30'09'2010., wherein the punishment of cENSURE and recovery of amount was alreadY imPosed'

2. Mr. A. Bhuvan Sundar Reddy' learned counsel for the petitloner submitted that this Court in W'P'No'43697 of 2018 has dealt with similar circumstances alrd vide order dated 02'04 '2025 allowed the same duly I I z a wp-43743_2018 NBK, J setting asirl I, r ir rpugned order dated 2g.0g.2}lg. similar ord:, r -r \ l,e passed et en in this writ petition ln i,ierri of the same,

3. 'fhis ( rr,r ir W.p.No.43697 of 201g has consider.r,rl Rule position and passed ' l" t'riied order. Hence, in view of the. s,brrrss ons made by lean'red cot,:it r tl,- the petitioner, this writ petition is al orve,d in terms of thc above sr,rl r,.der.. The impugned order dated 29.Og.2C1 g i ; accordingly set aside. l{rr :rsts Miscellaneous petitions pending, il.rin,; shall stand closcd. I I i l //TRUE COPY// ,\ SDir T.:I'IRUMALA DEVI DEPUry REGIST To, 2 4 c 6 KKS '...l S;E1''1'O* OFFICER The Secret,r - , F nance, (Admin-l), Department, Sedretar at B rildings, Secretarial. l- yde rabad. r,f T'easury and A-ccounts, Government of Telanlana, lnsurance The Dir€cto- Building At i s. Flydera-bad - 500 00 j. ' The Joirt D rr cto-, O/o.Joint Director, pension payment Of.icr,, IV.J.Road, Hyderabarl I 00 00'1. One CC to i,r11 ,,t BHUVAN SUNDER REDDY Advocate [Op JC] Two CCr; 1,r ( jP t:OR FINANCE PLANNING, High Court to. tt,e State of Telangana r. []T Two CD Co1: r ,s; (Along with ,l , r ccpy of the order dated 02.04.2025 in Wp N O. 43697 of 2018) \'i, . ij. .,.-.1-a:;r!e+r!ea..' - .:..' a-' HIGH COL'FIT NBK,J DATED:02105112025 ORDER WP.No.4374?t of 2018 rt' t- S ,' ri- -.:- 3 fi tlil TlIi c\\ -l;1 :!,ll :/ (' t '.) \i' l ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT CCS'TS \ \ Zt [i ,./:\(r4t \) I wp 43697,2074 NBK, J TTIE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESII BHEEMAPAKA WRIT PETITION No.43697 of 2018 ORDER: The petitioner is a Senior Accountant in the Office of Assistant Pension Payment Officer. On the allegation tha.t he has not followed the procedures prescribed under the A.P. Treasury Code, while he was a Junior Accountant in the year 2004, resulting in fraudulent withdrawals of Rs.10,052i-, 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 21.01 .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 contraryto the Rule 20 of APCS (CC&A) Rules. 199 l.

2. Heard Mr. A. Bhuvan Sundar Reddy, leamed counsel for the petitioner; and learned Government Pleader for Services-Ill Perused the record. Learned counsel for the petitioner, while making submissions on the

3. 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. Further, 2 !vF,_43697_2018 N8K, I there is no S Ir rw Cause notice to the petitioner beibre revising the punishmenl, arr th:refore the action of the authorities unCer Order dated 29.08.2018 i.; rl r.qatand arbitrary.

4. Learrrc,lr ov,lrnment Pleader, basing on the countei- afl idavit, would essentially r,rrr( nd that the Government is empowercd uruk:r Rule 40 of APCS (CC &. ,t ) Rrrles, 1991 , to revise a punishment rvithi I fitur years .sro motu. Leanc,.l t .P urther submits that the Government ,.,rle Memo dated 26.05.2015 (b1 . uoting the Memo dated 20.05.2013) order,:d to review the punishments in .:spect of the employees involved in tiaurlu lent drawing of pensions. It 's z'so contended that the authority compet()rt 1o review the punishment n I ) cither enhance, decrease, modify, r,r s,:t aside the punishment i,irt"iLrly imposed and therefore there is no ittergality in the impugned o-rl,: r are d 29.08.2018.

5. It is pertir r :nt to note that on the allegation that the D(.tit oner did not perform due rJilirenle while performing the duties of ,Iunir rr .A..:countant, as a result of rvhi:" fr;rudulent withdrawals to the tune of 11s.1rJ.052/- have taken plact:. r' sctrlinary proceedings ensued, culrrirratrng in the punishment o.',-,:,sLrre and recovery of Rs. 19,015/-. While sr,, after eight years, the tnrpL lreC punishment of stoppage of one i-rc-..ement with cumulative el't. ;. v,.as imposed under the revisionary 1lo,,vers of the Government un,lt,r Rule 40.

6. At thi:i .r u: r ture, it is relevant to refer to Rule 40( I )( i\.) , rf the ApCS (CC&A) Rules, ri hic[r reads as follows: "any other authcrity specified in this behalf by the Government by a general or special order and within such time as may be prescribed irr such general or special order, may where a rerrision petitior, is; r refer.red by the Government servant within onr: year of 3 wP_43697 2078 NSK, 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 . Further, Rule 40( l)(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 wp 43697_2018 N8K, J recovery ol' it:. t0.152l-. Rule a0(1)(iv) envisages that th: competent authority m1\; '('/ e rr,/ the punishment either suo motu or orherwise within four years, rLnrl r ri cight years as has been done in the inslant ()ase. Furthet the punishnrcrl ,)r 'itoppage of increment with cumulatii,t e:-fect being a major penaltr, t'e same cannot be imposed without afforrling reasonable opportunity ,rf r laking a representation by the Coven-utert seruant as contemplated u r t ler Rule a0(l)(iv)(d).

9. Acco:'drr11 r,, the writ petition is allowed, and the imp,ugned order dated 29.08 2() I rs set aside. No costs. Miscellaneous petitrorrs pending, if any, shall stirr,d,: ost:d. NAGESH BTT EEI\,IAPAKA, J 02'd April, 2025