APHC010026502021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH Wednesday, the Second day of April, Two Thousand and Twenty Five The Honourable Ms. Justice B.S. Bhanumathi Writ Petition (AT) No Between: P. Narayana Murthy (died) per L.Rs The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Principal Secretary, Finance (Admn.I) Department and others Counsel for the petitioner: Sri M. Pitchaiah Counsel for the respondents: Government Pleader for Services I The Court made the following: IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) Wednesday, the Second day of April, Two Thousand and Twenty Five Present The Honourable Ms. Justice B.S. Bhanumathi Writ Petition (AT) No.1245 of 2021 (O.A.No.3050 of 2017) P. Narayana Murthy (died) per L.Rs ...Petitioner AND The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Principal Secretary, Department and others ….Respondents for the petitioner: Counsel for the respondents: Government Pleader for The Court made the following: IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH [3333] Wednesday, the Second day of April, Two Thousand and Twenty Five ...Petitioners Respondents 2 BSB, J W.P (AT) No.1245 of 2021 ORDER: This petition under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, was filed seeking the following relief: “….to declare the proceedings of the 2nd respondent G2/K(1)4/32131/1997, dated 27.07.2015, in not considering and passing orders on the appeal/representation dated 07.12.2016, as illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional and being violative of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents to sanction and release the entire retirement benefits payable to the 1st petitioner, to the petitioners 3 to 6 by conferring all consequential benefits such as treating the period of suspension of the 1st petitioner as on duty, duly sanctioning the increments by applying the revised pay scales as revised from time to time, according notional promotion to the petitioner to higher post on par with his juniors with all consequential benefits and interest at 12% per annum on all the above retirement and consequential benefits from the due date till the date of realization, grant costs of the proceedings and pass probation and pass such other order or orders as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.” 2. Heard Sri M. Pitchaiah, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Services-I appearing for the respondents. 3 BSB, J W.P (AT) No.1245 of 2021 3. The facts, briefly stated, are as follows: a. The petitioner was working as S.T.O., District Treasury, Guntur. He was placed under suspension on 24.01.1998. A criminal complaint was also lodged against the petitioner and others in Crime No.13 of 1998 for the offences under Sections 464, 420 and 409 IPC. A charge memo, dated 25.03.1998, was issued by the 3rd respondent on the same set of allegations. No regular enquiry as contemplated under rule 20 of APCS (CC&A) Rules has been conducted, no witness was examined and the petitioner retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation on 30.06.2001. The petitioner was not paid any provisional pension. The 1st respondent issued G.O.Rt.No.1287, Finance (Admn.I) Department, dated 29.04.2003, imposing the punishment of withdrawal of full pension, DCRG and other terminal benefits besides. The repeated representations to the respondents requesting to pay the provisional pension in view of the pendency of the criminal case were not considered. The government issued G.O.Rt.No.699, dated 15.03.2004, keeping G.O.Rt.No.1286, dated 29.04.2003, in abeyance. The petitioner was acquitted in C.C.No.139 of 2008 by judgment, dated 25.11.2011, of II Additional Junior Civil Judge, Sathenapalli. Thereafter, the petitioner made representations to the respondents to release the entire retiral benefits by treating the period of suspension as on duty duly sanctioning the increments. However, so far, the respondents did not act on his representations. b. Since no order was passed on his representations, the petitioner filed O.A.No.2424 of 2015 before the Tribunal. The Tribunal on 01.05.2015, passed the following interim order: 4 BSB, J W.P (AT) No.1245 of 2021 “ Pending disposal of the O.A., respondents are directed to pass appropriate orders on the representation made by the applicant the latest being dated 11.03.2015 and release the entire retirement benefits in accordance with the rules, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order, keeping in view his acquittal in the criminal case No.139/2008, dated 25.11.2011.” c. In spite of the order, dated 01.05.2015, to pass appropriate orders on the representation of the petitioner and release the entire retirement benefits in accordance with the rules, the 2nd respondent issued the impugned proceedings, dated 27.07.2015 rejecting the request of the petitioner. Ultimately, the OA was closed on 12.09.2016 in view of the speaking orders issued by the 2nd respondent with liberty to question the speaking orders. d. The petitioner filed an appeal before the 1st respondent on 07.12.2016, but no order has been passed so far. Hence, this petition was filed. 4. The following article of charges have been framed against the petitioner: “ARTICLE I: That the said Sri P. Narayana Murthy, present S.T.O., District Treasury, Guntur (now under suspension) while functioning as Senior Accountant and incharge Sub Treasury Officer of Sub Treasury, Pedakurapadu during the period from 2.5.96 to 18.9.97 (as listed out in the imputations) has fraudulently drawn an amount of Rs.3,82,492/- as listed 5 BSB, J W.P (AT) No.1245 of 2021 out in statement I, in the names of pensioners from whom no amount was actually due and misappropriated the said amount and thus caused loss to Government by extending his powers as Sub Treasury Officer/Head of the Office. ARTICLE II: That during the aforesaid period and while functioning in the aforesaid office as Senior Accountant and Incharge Sub Treasury Officer, the said Sri P. Narayana Murthy has drawn amounts by noting different heads of accounts in the S.T.O numbers book and misappropriating the amount, by not including the same in the daily sheet and totally certain cash receipts actually received through challans were eliminated are thus misappropriated an amount of Rs.8,66,829/- as listed out in Statement II and thus caused loss to government by misutilizing his powers as Sub Treasury Officer. ARTICLE III: That during the aforesaid period and while functioning in the aforesaid office as Senior Accountant and Incharge S.T.O the said Sri P. Narayana Murthy has fraudulently drawn amount under fictitious names of pensioners and classified the expenditure under different heads of account and thus misappropriated an amount of Rs.1,54,580/- as listed out in misuse of his powers as Sub Treasury Officer. ARTICLE IV: That during the aforesaid period and while functioning in the aforesaid office as SA and Incharge STO the said Sri P. Narayana Murthy has drawn amounts under 6 BSB, J W.P (AT) No.1245 of 2021 V.P.P with fictitious cheque numbers and thus misappropriated an amount of Rs.1,99,267/- as listed out in statements IV and thus caused loss to Government by misusing the powers vested in him as Sub Treasury Officer. ARTICLE V: That during the aforesaid period and while functioning in the aforesaid office as SA and Incharge STO the said Sri P.Narayana Murthy has drawn amounts on fictitious names of pensioners and thus misappropriated an amount of Rs.51,072/- as listed out in statement V and thus caused loss to Government and also deceived the Government. ARTICLE VI: That during the aforesaid period and while functioning as Senior Accountant and Incharge Sub Treasury Officer of the aforesaid office, the said Sri P. Narayana Murthy has failed to discharge his duties properly and has also failed in maintaining basic records of the Sub Treasury, i.e., (i) day books not maintained; (ii) Subsidary Registers not maintained; (iii) payment particulars not noted in disburser’s halves of PPOs (iv) payment entries not noted in the check register (v) Accountants pension payment chitta not maintained.” 5. The respondents 1, 2 & 4 filed common counter with the following averments: a. The petitioner was kept under suspension vide proceedings No.K2/32131/1997, dated 22.01.1998 of the 2nd respondent in connection with fraudulently drawing government money of Rs.16,54,240/- and Rs.36,287/- and misappropriated the said pension 7 BSB, J W.P (AT) No.1245 of 2021 amounts while working as Sub Treasury Officer (I/c) Sub Treasury, Pedakurapadu and Duggirala by colluding with three other officials. Accordingly, disciplinary proceedings were initiated by issuing a charge memo for the alleged fraudulent drawal of pension amount and misappropriation of government money. Further, a criminal case against the petitioner and others was filed in C.C.No.139 of 1998 before the Court of II Additional Junior Civil Judge, Sattenapalli, Guntur District. b. The Inquiry Officer, in his report dated 16.01.2000, found that the charges framed against the petitioner were proved. The charges in the departmental proceedings are with reference to procedural irregularities of admitting irregular bills towards pension arrears of fictitious persons, whereas the charges in the criminal proceedings are that the accused conspired and played fraud in drawing huge amount of government funds indiscriminately by forging the bills and also by using fictitious names resulting in loss to the government which could not be proved before the Court. c. After following the procedure as per A.P.C.S (CCA) Rules, 1991 (in short, ‘CCA Rules’), the 1st respondent, vide G.O.Rt.No.1286, dated 29.04.2003 of Finance (Admn.I) Department, imposed punishment of withdrawal of full pension, DCRG and other terminal benefits. Apart from the said punishment, the government ordered that the misappropriated amount of Rs.12,19,720/- should be recovered from all the delinquent officers by fixing responsibility. d. Regarding the retirement benefits of the petitioner treating the suspension period on duty, his request was rejected by the 2nd respondent by a speaking order on the ground that the charges in the departmental proceedings and the charges in the criminal proceedings 8 BSB, J W.P (AT) No.1245 of 2021 are different as aforesaid. Further, O.A.No.2424 of 2015 filed by the petitioner was also closed by the Tribunal. 6. Perused the record. 7. The grievance of the petitioner is that no enquiry as required under rule 20 of the CCA Rules was conducted and the enquiry officer did not examine any witness and no documentary evidence was taken and merely basing on preliminary enquiry report, the conclusion was drawn and that the charged officer had no effective defence as the procedure had not been followed. It is further contended that the explanation of the charged officer was just denied without examining the same with reasons and that the interest of the charged officer was substantially prejudiced and injustice was done as the departmental proceedings were not stayed. 8. The learned counsel for the petitioner contending that the acquittal of the petitioner from the criminal case on the same facts and charges ought to have been considered, placed reliance on the following decisions: (i) In M. Paul Anthony vs. Bharat Gold Mines Ltd. and Ors.1, it was held at para No.22 as follows: “22. The conclusions which are deducible from various decisions of this Court referred to above are: (i) Departmental proceedings and proceedings in a criminal case can proceed simultaneously as there is no bar in their being conducted simultaneously, though separately. 1 (1999) 3 Supreme Court Cases 679 9 BSB, J W.P (AT) No.1245 of 2021 (ii) If the departmental proceedings and the criminal case are based on identical and similar set of facts and the charge in the criminal case against the delinquent employee is of a grave nature which involves complicated questions of law and fact, it would be desirable to stay the departmental proceedings till the conclusion of the criminal case. (iii) Whether the nature of a charge in a criminal case is grave and whether complicated questions of fact and law are involved in that case, will depend upon the nature of offence, the nature of the case launched against the employee on the basis of evidence and material collected against him during investigation or as reflected in the charge sheet. (iv) The factors mentioned at (ii) and (iii) above cannot be considered in isolation to stay the departmental proceedings but due regard has to be given to the fact that the departmental proceedings cannot be unduly delayed. (v) If the criminal case does not proceed or its disposal is being unduly delayed, the departmental proceedings, even if they were stayed on account of the pendency of the criminal case, can be resumed and proceeded with so as to conclude them at an early date, so that if the employee is found not guilty his honour may be vindicated and in case he is found guilty, administration may get rid of him at the earliest.” (ii) In G.M. Tank vs. State of Gujarat and Ors.2, it was held at para Nos.30 & 31 as follows: 2 (2006) 5 Supreme Court Cases 446 10 BSB, J W.P (AT) No.1245 of 2021 “30. The judgments relied on by the learned Counsel appearing for the respondents are not distinguishable on facts and on law. In this case, the departmental proceedings and the criminal case are based on identical and similar set of facts and the charge in a departmental case against the appellant and the charge before the criminal Court are one and the same. It is true that the nature of charge in the departmental proceedings and in the criminal case is grave. The nature of the case launched against the appellant on the basis of evidence and material collected against him during enquiry and investigation and as reflected in the charge sheet, factors mentioned are one and the same. In other words, charges, evidence, witnesses and circumstances are one and the same. In the present case, criminal and departmental proceedings have already noticed or granted on the same set of facts namely, raid conducted at the appellant's residence, recovery of articles therefrom. The Investigating Officer, Mr. V.B. Raval and other departmental witnesses were the only witnesses examined by the Enquiry Officer who by relying upon their statement came to the conclusion that the charges were established against the appellant. The same witnesses were examined in the criminal case and the criminal court on the examination came to the conclusion that the prosecution has not proved the guilt alleged against the appellant beyond any reasonable doubt and acquitted the appellant by his judicial pronouncement with the finding that the charge has not been proved. It is also to be noticed the judicial pronouncement was made after a regular trial and on hot contest. Under these circumstances, it would be unjust 11 BSB, J W.P (AT) No.1245 of 2021 and unfair and rather oppressive to allow the findings recorded in the departmental proceedings to stand. 31. In our opinion, such facts and evidence in the department as well as criminal proceedings were the same without there being any iota of difference, the appellant should succeed. The distinction which is usually proved between the departmental and criminal proceedings on the basis of the approach and burden of proof would not be applicable in the instant case. Though finding recorded in the domestic enquiry was found to be valid by the Courts below, when there was an honourable acquittal of the employee during the pendency of the proceedings challenging the dismissal, the same requires to be taken note of and the decision in Paul Anthony's case (supra) will apply. We, therefore, hold that the appeal filed by the appellant deserves to be allowed.” (iii) In China Galaiah vs. The Inspector General of Police and Ors., 3 it was held at paras 13 & 22 as follows: “13. As the very basis for departmental enquiry being the initiation of criminal prosecution against the petitioner and since the Sessions Court acquitted the petitioner cleanly the disciplinary authority ought to have dropped the proceedings. But the disciplinary authority, in a peculiar and unwarranted and without any authority of law, took a view different from the view taken by the learned Sessions Judge. In this context this Court consider it appropriate to refer to certain findings of the 3 2023 (6) ALD 170 (AP) (DB) 12 BSB, J W.P (AT) No.1245 of 2021 disciplinary authority in the impugned order of dismissal dated 04.10.2008, which read as follows: "It is clear from the evidence of the above witnesses, that the charged officer has developed illicit intimacy with Sandhya Rani and misbehaved with his wife, man handled and harassed her and as the charged officer was not taking care of the family, she used to iron the clothes of the neighbours and earn money. Later she became a hurdle to continue his illegal contacts. As far as acquittal by the court is concerned, it was done U/s.302 and 201 IPC, which deals with murder and screening of evidence. No charges were framed regarding harassment U/s.498 A IPC and illegal intimacy with other woman in the court of law. Court has not deliberated about these charges which were framed in departmental enquiry separately along with murder charge." 22. The very basis and foundation for initiating departmental proceedings against the Writ petitioner being the registration of crime and the criminal prosecution conducted thereafter. Admittedly, after holding full-fledged trial, the Court of the II Additional Sessions Judge, Guntur, acquitted the writ petitioner cleanly and honourably, but not by extending the benefit of doubt. The impugned action of authorities in holding the enquiry into the criminal offences alleged against the petitioner, in the teeth of judgment of Sessions Court, would tantamount to interference with the judicial process, which cannot be permitted. The exercise undertaken by the 13 BSB, J W.P (AT) No.1245 of 2021 disciplinary authorities is highly reprehensible, objectionable and the same is liable to be deprecated. The involvement in crime may be one of the factum while considering the candidature at the time of initiation of disciplinary proceedings, but it cannot be a ground for inflicting punishment. It is also pertinent to note that Article No. 2 of the enquiry is an integral part of Article No. 1. Perusal of the order passed by the Tribunal shows that the Tribunal did not consider the above aspects while arriving at the conclusions. The orders passed by the disciplinary authority, inflicting the punishment of dismissal in the teeth of the Judgment rendered by the Sessions Court suffer from inherent lack of jurisdiction. (iv) In G. Chinna Yogeswara Reddy vs. The State of Andhra Pradesh and Ors.4, it was held at paras 4, 11, 15 & 19 as follows: “4. In response to the said show-cause notice, petitioner herein submitted his explanation on 19.03.2010. Thereafter, vide G.O.Ms. Nos. 1118, (Revenue Vig.IV.3) Department, dated 02.09.2010, the State Government, in exercise of the powers conferred under Rule 9 of the Andhra Pradesh Revised Pension Rules, 1980, imposed punishment of 10% cut in pension permanently against the petitioner. 11. According to Rule 20(3), when there is a proposal to hold an enquiry against the Government servants under Rules 20 and 21, the disciplinary authority or the cadre controlling authority who is not designated as disciplinary authority and who is subordinate to the appointing authority can draw up or 4 2022(3) ALD 198 (AP) (DB) 14 BSB, J W.P (AT) No.1245 of 2021 cause to be drawn up, the substance of the imputations of misconduct or misbehavior into definite and distinct Articles of Charge and the statement of the imputations or misconduct or misbehavior in support of each of charge, which shall necessarily contain a statement of all relevant facts including any admission or confession made by the government servant and a list of documents by which, and a list of witnesses by whom, the articles of charge are proposed to be sustained. 15. It is also significant to note that in response to the show cause notice dated 02.03.2010, issued by the state government, proposing 30% cut in pension, petitioner herein submitted an elaborate explanation on 19.03.2010. It is also pertinent to note that apart from answering various charges, the petitioner herein made a request to afford opportunity of hearing. Admittedly, no such opportunity was afforded to the petitioner herein, prior to issuing the impugned G.O.Ms. Nos. 1118, (Revenue Vig.IV.3) Department, dated 02.09.2010. Coming to the order impugned in the Original Application, i.e., the order of punishment issued vide G.O.Ms. Nos. 1118, (Revenue Vig.IV.3) Department, dated 02.09.2010, a perusal of the said order of punishment shows that except referring to various dates in a chronological manner, the 1st respondent- state government did not make any endeavour to consider the contents of the explanation dated 19.03.2010. Having called for the explanation by way of a show-cause notice dated 02.03.2010, and having acknowledged the explanation offered by the petitioner, this Court does not find any justification on the part of the 1st respondent in not referring to the contents of the explanation. The said exercise undertaken by the 1st 15 BSB, J W.P (AT) No.1245 of 2021 respondent, cannot be approved by this Court. All these aspects missed the attention of the Tribunal, while dealing with the relevant mandatory requirements of law. 19. In view of the above reasons, and the law laid down in the above mentioned judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the composite High Court of Andhra Pradesh, this Court has absolutely no hesitation to arrive at a conclusion that the order passed by the Tribunal confirming the order of the punishment is neither sustainable nor tenable in the eye of law.” (v) In D.D. Tewari vs. Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd.5, it was held at para No.8 as follows: “8. For the reasons stated above, we award interest at the rate of 9% on the delayed payment of pension and gratuity amount from the date of entitlement till the date of the actual payment. If this amount is not paid within six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, the same shall carry interest at the rate of 18% per annum from the date of amount falls due to the deceased employee. With the above directions, this appeal is allowed.” (vi) In State of Kerala and Ors. vs. M. Padmanabhan Nair6, it was held at para No.3 as follows: “3. The instant case is a glaring instance of such culpable delay in the settlement of pension and gratuity claims due to the respondent who retired on 19-5-1973. His pension and 5 (2014) 8 Supreme Court Cases 894 6 (1985) 1 Supreme Court Cases 429 16 BSB, J W.P (AT) No.1245 of 2021 gratuity were ultimately paid to him on 14-8-1975, i.e., more than two years and 3 months-after his retirement and hence after serving lawyer's notice he filed a suit mainly to recover interest by way of liquidated damages for delayed payment. The appellants put the blame on the respondent for delayed payment on the ground that he had not produced the requisite L.P.C (Last Pay Certificate) from the Treasury Officer under Rule 185 of the Treasury Code. But on a plain reading of Rule 186, the High Court held and in our view rightly that a duty was cast on the Treasury Officer to grant to every retiring government servant the last pay certificate which in this case had been delayed by the concerned officer for which neither any justification nor explanation had been given. The claim for interest was, therefore, rightly, decreed in respondent's favour.” 9. It is further contended that as the departmental proceedings and criminal case are based on identical facts and the charges are same, the departmental proceedings shall be stayed till conclusion of the criminal case as held in the case of Paul Anthony (supra) and the other cases cited supra. Since the enquiry is completed and punishment was also awarded, there is no worth in contending that the proceedings on departmental side ought to have been stayed pending conclusion of the criminal proceedings. 10. By the impugned order, dated 27.07.2015, the request of the charged officer to release the retirement benefits by conferring all consequential benefits treating the suspension period on duty was rejected observing that the grounds for departmental proceedings and 17 BSB, J W.P (AT) No.1245 of 2021 the criminal proceedings are different from each other and that the departmental proceedings are primarily for finding out procedural defects, whereas criminal proceedings are for meant to find out conspiracy to commit fraud and therefore, acquittal in a criminal case has no bearing on the departmental proceedings. Now, the question of application of rule 20 of the CCA Rules cannot be examined as the proceedings of punishment passed basing on the enquiry are not under challenge. Moreover, since the petitioner filed appeal against the same proceeding which is challenged now in this petition, this Court does not see any reason to interfere with the impugned order. 11. In the result, the writ petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. __________________ B.S.BHANUMATHI, J 02-04-2025 RAR