The Secret,r v. Fir se

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitutign of lndia praying that in the circum$tances stated in the affidavit filed therewith' the High Court may he pleasedtoissueanappropriateWrit,directionorordermoreparticularlysnin thenatqreofWritofCertioraricatlingfortherecordsleadingtotheiFsueof impugqgd prgcee(ipgs No.Al/6138/JD tPPOt2O18-5' dt 29'08 2018 issue{ by thq Respondent No.3 impqsing punishrnent of stoppage of bne inclement with cumulative effect Qy revising the final order of punishrnent yidq proceeQings f,lo.K/Ali8022- 3lJDtPPol2ool-2010, dt 30 09 2010' in whiqh punishment 9f Censure be$ide reqovery was imposed and set aside the same by holdlng it as highly iliegal, violalive of Rules apart from being violative of principles of natu!-a! justice I l lA NO: 1 oF 2018 Petition un: t'r s;ection 151 cpc praying that in the c:ircu nstances stated in the affidavit frrr'i in support of the petition, the High court mzry be preased to iuqpeld the oper.rlion af the impugned proceedings No.A.r/6133/ JDrppor2o1L., 5 dt.29.08 20- B p t: rding of the above writ petition. IA NO: 1 0F 2019 Between: 1 . The State : f 'relangana, Department iecretariai eriioiri( sJ#taiiatlFyoeraoacr Rep. by tis Secretary, F ina nce (Admin_l), ' Ili#;"'i:li,i, IXr:,.:3,1,9$t'BH?l' Government or reran rana rnsurance ' Il3"*[:.!,f?ii3l,,o" Joint Director' Pension Pav,.nent ]fl ce, M J Road, AND ., PEilTIoNERg $"trifl"r"J'i;r'{:i"o;iYfi$"3i;;1'9i3#J,,',irs' occ Govt s':rvice, R/o,prer Petition under Ser:tion .15i CpC pr:aying that in the ciftrLm{itances stateq in the affidavit file,l ir sLrpport of the petitiqn, the High Court rn,ry be pleased to vacate the interim o .r ler !t 06 12.2018 in l.A.No.1 of 2018 in \11.1:,,No.44328 gf 2018 ..,RESPQNDENT Counsel for the petilir:ne,r: SRI A.BHUVAN SUNDER REDDY counsel for the Resprrndents: Gp FoR FTNAN.E & The Court made the lc,llo,wing: ORDER 'LANNTNG 1 wp-44328-2018 NBK,I TIIE HON' BLE SRI JUSTICE NAG E,S WRIT PETTTION No. 44328 HBHEEMA of 2018 ORDER: The Petitioner is a Senior Accountant in the Office of Assistant Pension Payment Ofticer, Malakpet on Adhoc promotion' It is submitted that while petitioner was working as Junior Accountant on adhoc basis' 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 C)ffrcer were appointed and the Commissioner of enquires has submitted enquiry report and basing on the said enquiry repoft, a show cause notice was issued and respondent no'3 has issued final orders imposing punishment of CENSURE' and recovery of Rs'3'782/-' the same was implemented and the amount has been fully recovered from the petitioner' It is further submitted that while the matters stood thus' issued present proceedings respondent no'3 has No.Al /61 38/JD/PPO/2018-5' dated 29'08'2018' imposing punishment of stoppage of one increment with cumulative eflect by revising the hnal order of punishment in proceedings No'K/A1 /80 Z2-3 I JD IPP O 1200 1 -20 1 0' dated 30.09.2010, wherein the punishment of CENSIIRE and recovery of amount was alreadY imPosed'

2. Mr. A. Bhuvan Sundar Reddy'' leamed counsel for the petitioner submitted that this Court in W'P'No'43697 of 2018 has dealt with similar circumstances arrd vide order dated 02'04 '2025 allowed the same duly I I \ I 2 wp_44328_2O18 NBK, J settrng asrde rl e impugned order dated 2g.Og.2}1g similar orrlc.r r-a1' 5e passed even in this writ petition In r ie',v of the same,

3. Thir; (_:r fi 11 W.pNo.4369l of 20lg has considcrcd I{ule position and passe<l , rl:iailed order. Hence, in view of the sub, rsrions made by lea,red co'-rrsci :b'the petitr'oner, this writ petition is all,w:d in terms of the above :;ajc i rdr r. The impugned order dated 29.0g.20r g is accordingly set aside. \o r )st:i. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if an y, shall stand closed. rtre Hon,ulerllillti,r.Sli!9: made Absorute as above wirness -r jiy. oi fi ,y i: Il,: fi[,lg ;#- ",r.rJ i*""?,?,riif F ri d a y, th e *, a s "., SD/-'T. IRUMALA DEVI TASSIS IAirtT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// / To, ",.;

1. The Secret,r v. Fir se","t-ri Ii" ii,,n ,. SiE(.:TIONOFF1CER I iji"3:r,lXlTLlln#pa rtrrsnt Sec re"a ria t Buird inss, ' Iffi.o,J!:i l',:: i;ff..g#9ABBH?" Government or re an 7ana, rnsurance ' IlE"1:[]n'1iiil1,!,,o'" Joint Director, Pension pavment orrice, M.J Road, 4. One CC to SFI A 3HUVAN SUNDER REDDY, Advocate [OpLrC] 5. Two CCs lrt rl P 1:6p & PLANNING' Hish court ior the state of Telansana ,r, 'yaeribr5lffif?E

6. Two CD ()oo <,i (Along with the rropy of order dated 02.04,2025, in W.p.No,43697 of 2glS) I BSR Ir ,F1.f-:Fre .v: .,-'.r. 1' HIGH COURT DATED:02 t'}St2OZs ORDER WP.No.443Z8 ctf 2018 .4 ''7 -)' 3 ! ii ii itffzS 5, I ,:l a.' ---:-- 1 i ,-1.. 'ii.l ALLOWNG THE WRIT PETITION, WTHOUT COSTS (r -i ) ( l.> 3o _ .'' ,''.''.,*'-- *- *-'L..'..**]'.-.-.-4: 7 wp_43597_2018 NBK, J THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BIIEEMAPAKA WRIT PETITION No.43697 of 2018 ORDER: The petitioner is a Senior Accountant in the Off,rce of Assistant 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 03.08.2017 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, leamed counsel for the petitioner; and learned Govemment Pleader for Services-Ill. Perused the record. Learned counsel for the petitioner, while making submissions on the

3. lines ofwrit affrdavit, 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, I i t 2 w p_43697 _2078 NBK, J , there is no iI.u cause notice to the petitioner bcfcrr,. revising the punishment. arr I therefore the action of the authorities undr,:r order dated 29.08 .201E is i I 'egal and arbitrary.

4. Learnerc ( ior emment pleader, basing on the counter al,fidavit, would essentially cirrr :r.rd that the Govemment is empowered undsr.Rule 40 of APCS (CC.q r, r Rules, 1991, to revise a punishment with n .bur years suo motu. Leanrcd iiP fur1her submits that the Government Memo dated 26.05.2015 (try'rluoring the Memo dated,20.05.20r3) ordered to review the punishments Lr respect of the employees involved in fraudule nt drawing of pensions. Il is ,r so contended that the authority competent ro review the punishment r-n z , r'ither enhance, decrease, modifi,, or s et aside the punishment 3l't: rd1 imposed and therefore there is no , tle,garity in the impugned orde' r late'd 29.08.2018. 'ide

5. It is per:trrr,r,t to note that on the allegation that the pr:titioner did not perform due clilisenc,e while performing the duties of Juni,rr A,lcountant, as a result of rvhi :i lrrudulent withdrawars to the tune of R;. r ).052/_ have taken placi:. c sci tlinary proceedings ensued, culmilat ing in the punishment cl , t.nsrrre and recovery of Rs.19,015i_. While,s(), after e.ght years, the impl1rne,] punishment of stoppage of one inc;.ement with cumulative :l-lt'r: u'as imposed under the revisionary 1lo,.vers of the Government unrl:' Rrle 40. {1 1ri5 js,rihrrr:, it is relevant to refer to Rule 40(1xi\.) r,f the ApcS

6. (CC&A) Rules. u'rich reads as follows: . "any othe,r arrthority specified in this beharf by the Goverrrment by a general ,). special order and within such time as may be prescribed in such general or special order, may where a rerrision petition is ;lroferred by the Government servant within onr: yr:rar of 3 wP_43597_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 othemrise 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 wiih 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: Pro\iided 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: 1

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 . NBK, J recovery oi Rr, 10.052/-. Rule a0(1)(iv) envisages that the competent authority mar .:view the punishment either suo motu or cth,::twise within four years, iin,l l lt e,ight years as has been done in the rnsrant ,lase. Furthel the punishnren: rf :;toppage of increment with cumulativc e ffect being a major penaJty. tl e same cannot be imposed without affrrr,lirrg reasonable opportunity of rlaking a representation by the GovenrnrerLt servant as contemplated ur le1 f,uls a0(lXivXd).

9. Accordirg 1,, the writ petition is allowed, and the impugned order dated 29.08.20 ! js ;et aside. No costs. Miscellaneous petitiors pending, if any, shall stand ,: osi:d. 02'd April, 202 i NAGESH BIIEEMAPAKA, J I I I I i ,l i