1 APHC010660082022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3458] THURSDAY,THE FOURTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA WRIT PETITION NO: 39362/2022 Between: 1. D KARUNA CHANDRA BABU, S/O LATE NAGABHUSHANAM, AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS, OCC. REGIONAL DIRECTOR OF MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION (RETIRED), GUNTUR. R/O FLAT NO.2, SRI VENKATESAM APARTMENT, 3RD LANE, BRUNDAVAN GARDENS, GUNTUR. ...PETITIONER AND 1. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVT OF AP, MA AND UD DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2. THE DIRECTOR OF MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION, GUNTUR, ANDHRA PRADESH. ...RESPONDENT(S): Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased topleased to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring more particularly in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring GORT No. 382, MA and UD, dt.22-03-2006 and GORT No.982, MA and UD Department, dt.06-08-2007 issued by the 1st respondent in initiating disciplinary proceedings and not concluding the disciplinary proceedings after a lapse of 16 years of its initiation and not settling the pension and pensionary benefits 11 years after retirement of the petitioner 2 from service is arbitrary, illegal, and in violation of Article 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India and the same are vitiated by delay and laches and quash or set aside the same, and to issue a consequential direction to the respondent to pay the retiremental benefits including pension of the petitioner with interest @ 12percent per annum from the date of his retirement and to pass IA NO: 1 OF 2022 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased be pleased to finalise the pension and pensionary benefits including gratuity of the petitioner forthwith and to pass IA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased pleased to grant leave to file the Counter Affidavit in WP.No.39362 of 2022 in the interest of justice and may be pleased to pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. A RAJENDRA BABU Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR SERVICES IV The Court made the following: ORDER: Heard Sri A. Rajendra Babu, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader for Services IV, appearing for the respondents. 2. The instant case is a glaring example of administrative lethargy and gross negligence in discharge of official duties. 3. The petitioner was selected in Group I examinations conducted by the APPSC and appointed in 1987 as a Municipal Commissioner Grade-II. 3 Thereafter, he was promoted to Municipal Commissioner Grade-I. Till his retirement in 2011, he served in the Municipal Corporation in various capacities. After attaining the age of superannuation, he retired in 2011. 4. During his tenure in the department, two disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him vide the following proceedings: (i) G.O.Rt.No.382, MA & UD-VI department, dated 22-03-2006. The charges framed against the petitioner are: “Chare No.1: That he had failed to take action against the owner, Vikas Educational Institute for the use of entire stilt floor for class rooms as against the permission taken from the Municipality. Charge No.2: That he had failed to take physical possession of the road widening area to an extent of 180 Sq.Mts taken from owner, Vikas Educational Institute while granting building permission and the owner has established some structures in road widening area taking the advantage of inaction of Municipal Commissioner. Charge No.3: That he has allowed premature withdrawal of deposit amount by the owner, Vikas Educational Institute without production of occupancy certificate by the owner as against G.O.Ms.No.423, dt.31-07- 1998. Charge No.4: That he had failed to take necessary action to stop/ demolish the unauthorized constructions of commercial purpose, in respect of wood land hotel which came up as against the B.A. No. 233/2000/G1, dt. 23.10.2001, without leaving any set backs. 4 Charge No.5: That he had failed to take necessary steps for providing parking space for vehicle by the owner, wood land Hotel. Charge No.6: That he had failed to take necessary steps for providing parking space for vehicles by the owner, wood land Hotel. Charge No.7: That he has exhibited lack of integrity, devotion to duty and conduct thereby contravened Rule 3 of APCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964. (ii) G.O.Rt.No.982, MA & UD department, dated 06-08-2007. The following two charges were framed against the petitioner: Charge 1: That he while working as Municipal Commissioner, Khammam Municipality has delayed in release of funds to the RDO, for compensation of private lands in Kanapuram (Haveli) under the scheme of Integrated for small and medium towns to the RDO, Khammam has requested vide DOLR.No.C1/3055/87, dt.24-04-1993 to deposit an amount of Rs.2.50 lakhs, he has deposited the amount with a delay of 2 ½ years vide his LR.ROC.No.10466/G1/1986, dt.05-08-1995 thereby he has failed to discharge his legitimate duties. Charge No.2: that he failed to maintain absolute integrity, discipline, impartiality and sense of prosperity and his act of unbecoming of such an employee of the Govt, thereby contrary rule 3 of APCS (Conduct) Rules 1964. 5. The disciplinary proceedings were not concluded while the petitioner was in service. The petitioner had made requests to drop the charges. The same did not yield any result. He retired in 2011. The petitioner contends that since then, the petitioner has been paid only a provisional pension. 5 6. After filing the Writ Petition, when the same is ripe for consideration, the respondents have filed their counter-affidavit on 28-08-2025. It has been stated in the counter affidavit that the disciplinary proceedings were dropped vide G.O.Rt.No.735, MA & UD (Vig.III) Dept., dated 01.11.2023; however, it is further stated that the 2nd disciplinary proceedings initiated in 2007 are still pending before the Government of Telangana. 7. The learned counsel for the petitioner argues that the respondents have denied the petitioner the retirement benefits. It has been 15 years since he retired from service, and the respondents have not taken any steps to release his pensionary benefits under the guise of disciplinary proceedings. The learned counsel for the petitioner further argues that in respect of one charge memo which is stated to be pending before the Telangana government is concerned, no allegations of misappropriation are made, it is only alleged that the petitioner did not grant timely permission to release the funds for payment of compensation to private lands Khanapuram, under the scheme of Integration of Small and Medium towns. 8. He thus argues that the action of the respondents in withholding the pensionary benefits is illegal. He relying on the decision of the Apex Court 6 in the case of State of A.P. Vs. N. Radhakishan1, prays that the direction may be issued to release the pensionary benefits of the petitioner forthwith. 9. The learned Government Pleader referring to the counter affidavit filed by the respondents argues that the disciplinary proceedings are still pending before Telangana government. Therefore the pensionary benefits have been withheld. 10. Considered the rival submissions. 11. As observed supra, it is a classic case of gross negligence and apathy. The petitioner retired in 2011; in normal parlance, one month before a person retires, his pension papers would be made ready by the appropriate wing of the concerned department. In the present case, having regard to the pendency of the disciplinary proceedings initiated 5 years before the retirement, the petitioner was asked to retire without payment of any retirement benefits. He was granted a provisional pension. 12. In fact, in 2013 itself, the 1st respondent issued proceedings stating the charges framed against the petitioner were not proved on the ground that the alleged irregularities had not taken place during the petitioner’s tenure. 13. Until 2025, there has been no information on the pending disciplinary proceedings; it is only few days before the disposal of the present case that the respondents filed their counter, stating that the disciplinary 1 (1998) 4 Supreme Court Cases 154 7 proceedings initiated as per 1st charge memo dated 22-03-2006 had been dropped. And further stated that the proceedings in respect of the 2nd charge memo are pending before the Telangana state, and further proceedings are awaited. There is no indication in the counter affidavit as to when they would pay the retirement benefits of the petitioner. 14. Since his retirement, he would be expecting the release of his pension benefits from the department. An inordinate delay of 14-years in paying retirement benefits is not only highly illegal but also reflects administrative apathy and a violation of the employees' fundamental rights. The said action of the respondents would, apart from causing financial hardship, also cause damage to his reputation to him and the family resulting in mental stress. 15. A perusal of the charges framed in the second charge memo would indicate that the petitioner while working as a Municipal Commissioner, Khammam, was not diligent in releasing the funds of Rs.2,50,000/- to the RDO, Khammam, payable to the private land owners towards compensation and the said amount was deposited after two and half years. The said charge does not attribute any loss of revenue to the government or misconduct on the part of the petitioner. 16. Under the guise of a pending enquiry into the said charge memo of 2007 which is pending, now before neighboring State of Telangana, the 8 respondents cannot withhold the pensionary benefits of the petitioner who retired from service in 2011. 17. This Court deems it fit to dispose of the Writ Petition with a direction to the respondents to pay the petitioner pensionary benefits that are due to him forthwith, along with interest @ 9% per annum, not later than four (4) weeks from the date of receipt of the order. 18. Though the state exchequer is not responsible for the delay, it is being overburdened by the negligent acts of the officials. 19. With the above observations, the Writ Petition is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, all pending miscellaneous applications shall stand closed. ______________________________ JUSTICE KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA Date:04.09.2025 MVK 9 188 THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA WRIT PETITION NO:39362/2022 Date:04.09.2025 MVK