IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE NINTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJA WRIT PETITION NO: 7504 OF 2025 Between: K. Bharathi Jyothi, W/o. Late K. Aseervadam, CAS, aged about 55 years, R/o. Pramodhini Residency, Flat No. 301, Gunadala, Vijayawada NTR District, AP. ...PETITIONER AND 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Medical Health and Family Welfare Department, Rep. by the Spl. Chief Secretary, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravathi. Andhra Pradesh. 2. The Directorate of Secondary Health, Rep. by its Director, Tadepalle, Guntur District. Andhra Pradesh. 3. The District Co-ordinator of Hospital Services,, Visakapatnam, Visakapatnam District. Andhra Pradesh. 4. The Superintendent, Area Hospital, Aruku Valley, Alluri Sitharamaraju District. Andhra Pradesh. ...RESPONDENTS 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 to issue writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the proceedings of the 2 Respondent vide File No FIMF01- PHFW0CAPV(VDIS)/4/2023-VC-ll, Dated. 11.03.2025 is illegal, arbitrary , contrary to the Provisions of F.R 54- B (2) and violative of Articles 14, 21 and 366 (17) of The Constitution Of India, set aside the same consequently direct the respondents to release nd the retirement benefits by regularize the suspension period of late Dr. K. Aseervadam and pay the pension to the petitioner. lANO: 1 OF 2025 i . . ^ Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the respondents to pay the family pension to the petitioner pending disposal of the above writ petition. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI S. APPADHARA REDDY Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR SERVICES I The Court made the following: ORDER APHC010144192025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3506] WEDNESDAY ,THE NINTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN WRIT PETITION NO: 7504/2025 Between: K Bharathi Jyothi ...PETITIONER AND The State Of Ap and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner; 1.S APPADHARA REDDY Counsel for the Respondent(S); 1.GP FOR SERVICES I The Court made the following: 2 a CGR, J W.P.No.7504 of 2025 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN WRIT PETITION No.7504 of 2025 ORDER: The present writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the following relief: ‘...to issue writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Maridamus declaring the proceedings of the 2nd Respondent vide File No: HMF01- PHFW0CAPV(VDIS)/4/2023-VC-ll, Dated. 11.03.2025 is illegal, arbitrary, contrary to the Provisions of F.R 54-B (2) and violative of Articles 14, 21 and 366 (17) of The Constitution Of India, set aside the same consequently direct the respondents to release the retirement benefits by regularize the suspension period of late Dr. K. Aseervadam and pay the pension to the petitioner and to pass such other order or orders...." (in verbatim) The petitioner’s husband joined service as a Civil Assistant Surgeon on 01.07.1999. While he was working as Medical Superintendent, Area Health Hospital, Bapatia, he was subjected to departmental proceedings on allegations of misappropriation of 2. government funds and was consequently placed under suspension on 03.07.2019. Subsequently, a criminal case was registered against him under Sections 420, 409, 406, 471,477-A, and 201 read with Section 34 IPC with Bapatia Town Police Station. 3. After completion of the investigation into the aforementioned offences, a charge sheet was filed, and the criminal case was 3 >r‘ CGR,J W.P.No.7504 of 2025 numbered as C.C.No.659 of 2019 on the file of the learned Additional Junior Civil Judge, Bapatla. While the matter stood thus, the petitioner’s husband passed away on 08.10.2020. In view of his death, the criminal case against him was abated, and accordingly, the criminal court by order dated 28.01.2021 closed the case against the petitioner’s husband. Subsequently, in light of his death, the petitioner made an application seeking compassionate appointment for her son. Considering the same, the petitioner’s son was appointed as Junior 4. Assistant in the office of the Divisional Forest Officer, Giddalur, by proceedings of the District Collector dated 28.12.2021. The petitioner submitted several representations dated 5. 27.07.2021, 17.11.2021, 05.12.2022, 01.02.2023, 17.02.2023, 18.02.2023, 09.10.2023, 26.09.2024, and 23.12.2024, requesting release of retirement and pensionary benefits of her deceased husband. As no action was taken, the petitioner filed W.P.No.3683 of 2025, in which this Court passed an interim order dated 12.02.2025 directing the respondents to consider and dispose of the petitioner’s representations. Pursuant to the said interim direction, the 2'^'^ respondent 6. passed the impugned order dated 11.03.2025, rejecting the 4 CGR,J W.P.No.7504 of 2025 petitioner’s claim on the ground that an amount of Rs.50,19,820/- was misappropriated by the petitioner’s husband and that the said amount was liable to be recovered from those involved in the misappropriation. 7. Challenging the said order, the petitioner filed the present writ petition. 8. Heard Sri S. Appadhara Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Services-I appearing for the respondents. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the charge memo No.2424/VC/2019, dated 26.08.2019, was brought to the notice of the petitioner for the first time through the impugned proceedings. It was submitted that the Enquiry Officer conducted an enquiry and submitted a report on 14.06.2023, which formed the basis of the 2^'’ respondent’s decision to hold her late husband liable 9. and recover the alleged misappropriated amount. Learned counsel argued that since the petitioner’s husband passed away on 08.10.2020, even assuming disciplinary proceedings were initiated, the same stood abated in terms of Rule 9 of the Andhra Pradesh Revised Pension Rules, 1980. 5 CGR,J W.P.No.7504 of 2025 He placed reliance on the judgment of the High Court for the 10. State of Telangana at Hyderabad in C. Sujatha v. State of Telangana and others \ wherein reference was made to The Government of Andhra Pradesh and others v. M. Veeramma^. The petitioner also brought to the notice of this Court the order 11. dated 04.04.2025 passed in W.P.No.7422 of 2025. The operative portion of the said order reads as follows; “9. In this view of the matter, the Writ Petition stands allowed by setting aside G.O.Rt.No.694, Panchayat Raj and Rural Development (VIG.V) Department, dated 29.12.2021, issued by respondent with further direction to release the balance amount of Rs. 12,04,000/- (Rupees Twelve Lakhs and Four Thousand), which is withheld, along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from 01.03.2018, as directed by this Court in W.P.No.16498 of 2021 and the amount shall be released within a period of eight (08) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs. ” 12. Opposing the aforesaid submissions, learned Assistant Government Pleader, relying on written instructions, contended that although the petitioner’s husband expired while in service on 08.10.2020, the disciplinary proceedings had already been initiated 2023(5) ALD 610 (TS) ^ 2017 (6) ALD 726 (DB) 6 CGR,J W.P.No.7504 of 2025 against him by issuing a charge memo dated 26.08.2019. The disciplinary authority proceeded with the enquiry, and the Enquiry Officer subsequently submitted a report holding that the charges framed against the delinquent were proved. In terms of G.O.Ms.No.85, Finance and Planning (FIN.WING-PEN.I) Department, dated 12.07.1999, if it is established that the deceased employee had caused loss to the Government by way of misappropriation, the disciplinary proceedings would not abate automatically, and the misappropriated amount could be recovered from the legal representatives. In view of the above, since it was clearly established that the petitioner’s husband was involved in misappropriation of government funds, the 2^^ respondent rightly rejected the petitioner’s request for release of retirement and pensionary benefits. 13. 14. This Court has perused the material available on record and considered the rival submissions of both learned counsel. 15. The record shows that the petitioner’s husband was issued a charge memo dated 26.08.2019 on allegations of misappropriation of government funds. Prior to that, he was placed under suspension on 03.07.2019. A criminal case was also registered on 28.08.2019 under Sections 420, 409, 406, 471, 477-A, and 201 read with 7 CGR,J W.P.No.7504 of 2025 Section 34 of the IPC at Bapatia Town Police Station. Unfortunately, the petitioner’s husband died in harness on 08.10.2020. In view of his death, the criminal court, in C.C.No.659 of 2019, passed an order dated 28.01.2021 abating the criminal proceedings against Accused No.3 (petitioner’s husband). 16. However, despite his death, the respondents continued the departmental enquiry and appointed an Enquiry Officer, who submitted a report nearly four years later, on 14.06.2023, holding that the charges were proved. The conduct of an enquiry after the death of the delinquent is wholly impermissible in law. Rather than abating the proceedings, the respondents proceeded to determine liability, which is unsustainable. 17. A similar issue came up for consideration before the Division Bench of this Court in The Government of Andhra Pradesh (hereinafter referred to as citation 2), wherein it was held: case "As regards the proceedings of petitioner No.1 in directing the recovery of alieged loss, we are entirely in agreement with the view of the Tribunal that once the disciplinary proceedings have abated, recovery also gets abated. The reason for this is not far to seek. Before the disciplinary proceedings were brought to its logical end, the delinquent died. Had he been alive, there would have been a possibility of his convincing the \ 8 CGR.J W.P.No.7504 of 2025 disciplinary authority to drop further action by submitting his explanation. Such an opportunity was lost with the death of the deiinquent. It is precisely for this that the death of a delinquent before the conclusion of disciplinary proceedings would bring in the abatement of the disciplinary proceedings. Once the proceedings get abated, every aspect connected therewith will cease to exist in law. It, therefore, follows that the enquiry report which is part of disciplinary proceedings based on which petitioner No.1 has come to the conclusion that the deceased employee has caused loss also ceases to exist in law. In the absence of any determination of the employee's liability in the disciplinary proceedings, it is not permissible for the employer to mulct the liability on the family of the deceased based on an enquiry report which has not been taken to its logical end. reason In this view of the mater, the proceedings of the petitioner No. 1 in directing the recovery of alleged loss cannot be sustained ” 18. In the present case, once the petitioner’s husband expired on 08.10.2020, the disciplinary proceedings initiated under the charge memo dated 26.08.2019 abated automatically. The enquiry could not have been continued to determine the charges, nor could a report be validly submitted on 14.06.2023, nearly four years later. The criminal case, which involved identical allegations of misappropriation, was also abated by the competent criminal court. 9 CGR, J W.P.No.7504 of 2025 Accordingly, the respondents ought to have abated the 19. disciplinary proceedings and ought not to have proceeded with them. Their failure to do so amounts to a serious legal error. As for the reliance placed by the learned Assistant 20. Government Pleader on G.O.Ms.No.85 dated 12.07.1999 to contend that recovery is permissible even after the death of the delinquent, a plain reading of the said G.O. shows that, generally, disciplinary proceedings abate upon the death of the charged officer. However, as an exception, if misappropriation is already established and legal heirs are brought on record during the pendency of the proceedings. the enquiry can be concluded, and recovery can be effected from the legal representatives. That is not the situation in the present case. Even assuming the exception applied, the respondents, despite knowing that the delinquent officer had passed away on 21. 08.10.2020, failed to take any steps to bring the legal representatives on record to continue the enquiry. Without determining liability in accordance with law and in the absence of a concluded disciplinary proceeding, no recovery can be effected. 10 CGR, J W.P.No.7504 of 2025 22. It is a settled principle that for recovery to be effected, liability must first be validly determined. In the absence of such determination, no liability can be fastened. 23. Hence, the impugned proceedings dated 11.03.2025 issued by the 2nd respondent. proposing to recover the alleged misappropriated amounts from the deceased employee, are legally unsustainable and are hereby set aside. 24. The respondents are directed to release the retiremental and pensionary benefits of the late Dr. K. Aseervadam by regularizing the period of suspension, within a period of two (2) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 25. With the above directions, the Writ Petition is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, shall Sd/- K.KASI RAO ACHARI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER stand closed. //TRUE COPY// To. of Andhra Family Welfare Department, Secretariat Andhra Pradesh. ^''■®cto''ate of Secondary Health District. Andhra Pradesh. Co-ordinator of Hospital Services Visakapatnam District. Andhra Pradesh. 4. The Superintendent, Area Hospital Aruku District. Andhra Pradesh. ^ ’ 6 Two f Advocate [OPUC] 7.' ^ilee c a C?ptes '' <=onrt of Andhra pJadesh. [OUT] Cnr Pradesh, Medical Health and Velagapudi, Amaravathi. Tadepalle, Guntur Visakapatnam, Valley, Alluri Sitharamaraj u HIGH COURT DATED:09/04/2025 ORDER WP.No.7504 of 2025 Ykj s 09 MAY 2025 Cs. ^ . Curreni Section . ’ ALLOWING THE W.P. WITHOUT COSTS