J.Ashok v. The State of Telangana

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate Writ, direction or order more particularly on in the nature of Writ of Certiorari calling for the records leading to the issue of impugned proceedings No.A1/6138/JDtPPOl2O18-1, dt.29.08.2018 issued by the Respondent No.3 imposing punishment of stoppage of one increment with cumulative effect by revising the final order of punishment vide proceedings No.K/A1/8022-8lJDlPPOl2001-2010, dt.30.09.2010, in which punishment of Censure beside recovery was imposed and set aside the same by holding it as highly illegal, violative of Rules apart from being violative of principles of natural justice. lA NO: 1 OF 2018 petition underr Section .1 51 cpc praying that in ther circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High ccurt may be pleased to suspend the operarion of the impugned proceedings No.tr116138/JDlppot2olg- 1,dt.29.08.2018 pending of the above writ petition. lA NO: 't OF 2019 Between: 1. The Depa State of Telangana, Rep. by its Secretary,, Finance, rtment, [;ecretariat Buildings, Secretariat, Hydera-bad. (Admin-l), 2 3 The Director c,f Treasury and Accounts, Government of Telangana, lnsurance Building, Abids, Hyderabad - 500 001. The Joint Dire-c1or, O/o.Joint Director, pension payment Office, M.J.Road, Hyderabad - 500 001. AND .] A9hok, S/o ' Abraham, Aged. 55 years, Occ 511615, Plot No.6. Road No.1, 'Andhra Vanastalipurarn. Hyderabad. . Govt Kesari Service, R/o. H.No.5-3- Nagar, Hayathnagar, ...PETlTlONERs Petition under. section 'l s 1 cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed rn support of the petition, the High court may be pleased to vacate the interim order d|.03.12.2018 in l.A.No.'l of 201ii in w.p.No.43697 of 2018. ...RESPONDENT Counsel for the Petitioner: SRt A.BHUVAN SUNDER REDDY Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR SERVICES-||| The Court made the following: ORDER L wp_43697_2018 NBK, J THEHON'BLE SRI JUSTIC E NAGES TI BHEEMAPAKA WRIT PETITION No.43697 of2018 ORDER: ThepetitionerisaSeniorAccountantintheofficeofAssistant pension Payment officer. 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, resulting in fraudulent withdrawals of 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 03.08.2017andalsotheMemodaled2l.0].2018ofrespondentNo.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 for 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 punishment for the same offence for which the petitioner had already undergone the punishment earlier amounts to double jeopardy' Further' 2 wp_43597_2018 NSK, J ., there is no Sh,rw Cause notice to the petitioner before revising the punishment, an<l therefore the action of the authoritiel; under Order dated

29.08.2018 is ill,:gal and arbitrary. Leamed ( ovemment Pleadeq basing on the counter affidavit, would

4. essentially contc nd that the Government is empowered under Rule 40 of APCS (CC & A t Rules, 1991 , to revise a punishment ra'ithin fbur years .rto motu. Learned ( .P fi-rrther submits that the Govemment vide Memo dated

26.05.2015 (by t uoting the Memo dated 20.05.2013) ordered to review the punishments in lespect of the employees involved in frilrdulent drawing of pensions. It is a so contended that the authority competent to review the punislment rr-ra'. eilher enhance, decrease, modifu, or set aside the punishment alrc,rdy imposed and therefore there is no illegality in the impugned order rlated 29.08.201 8.

5. It is pertin -'nt to note that on the allegation that the petitioner did not perform due dili;ience while perforrning the duties of Junior Accountant, as a result of whiclr fraudulent withdrawals to the tune of' Rs. 10,052/- have taken place, disciplinary proceedings ensued, culminating in the punisl.rment o1'(onsure and recovery of Rs.19,015/-. V.4rile so, after eight years, the imprrgned punishment of stoppage of one increment with cumulative elfe. t was imposed under the revisionary powers of the Govemment und,:r Rule 40.

6. At this juncture, it is relevant to refer to Rule 0( l)(iv) of the APCS (CC&A) Rules, r;hich reads as follows: "any other authority specified in this behalf by the Government by a general or special order and within such time as may be prescribed in such general or special order, may where a revision petition is preferred by the Government servant within one year of i I I I I I I I I I I I I I t I : 3 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 'necessary' 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..." I I

7. 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 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_43597-2018 N8K, J recovery of Rs 10,052l-. Rule a0(1)(iv) envisages that the competent authority ma) r',. vie\ . the punishment either suo motu or otherwise within four years, and rrot eight years as has been done in the instant case. Further, the punishmeut of stoppage of increment with cumul.rtive effect being a major penalty, the same cannot be imposed without affbrding reasonable opporlunity of rnaking a representation by the Gov,:rnment servant as conternplated un der Rule a0( I )(iv)(d).

9. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed, and the impugned order dated 29.08.201ii is set aside. No costs. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand c losed. That Rule Nisi has made Absolute as above witness The Hon'ble SRI SUJOY PAUL, The Acting Chief Justice on this Wednesday, the Second Day of April, Two Thousand and Twenty Five. SD/. K.SREERAMA MURTHY r:_:'*:,="'|srRAl SECTION OFFICER J \ $ To, /TTRUE COPY// 'l . The Secreta ry, Finance, (Admin-l), Department, Secretariat Buildings, Secretariat, H yderabad, State of Telangana.

2. The Director of Treasury and Accounts, Government of Telangana, lnsurance Building, Abids, Hyderabad - 500 001.

3. The Joint Director, O/o.Joint Director, Pension Payment Office, M.J.Road, Hyderabad - 500 001.

4. One CC to SRI A.BHUVAN SUNDER REDDY, Advocale [OPUC] 5. Two CCs to C'P FOR SERVICES-Ill, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad [OUT]

6. Two CD Copies BSR PSK HIGH COURT DATED:0210412025 CC TODAY rr.- StAfA 1 J ) !1 u'\ P \i ,\\ 01 tiiAY 206 + D5 S CAT CO * ORDER WP.No.43697 of 2018 ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION, WITHOUT COSTS I i i I I 4!: I )4-