IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVA (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HON’BLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA WRIT PETITION NO: 13887 OF 2018 Between: N.Ranganna, S/o Buddanna aged about 59 years Occ: Jr. Asst. Cum- Typist O/o APSWRS. Jr. College Arikera Kurnool District. ...PETITIONER AND 1. The State of A.P., rep. by its Secretary, A.P. Social Welfare Residential Educational Institutions Society, Tadepally, Guntur. District. 2. The District Collector, Kurnool, Kurnool District. 3. The Principal A.P., Social welfare Residential Society/ Junior College Arikera, Aluru (M) Kurnool District. 4. The Secretary, A.P. Social Welfare Residential Educational Institutions Soceity, Tadepally, Guntur District. Respondent No.4 impleaded as per C.O. dt 05.03.2025 vide lA No.2 of 2018 in WP No.13887 of 2018 in the writ petition and affidavit. ...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 a Writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, by declaring the entire action of the 1st respondent in issuing the present impugned order vide procgs. Rc.No. Zone- IV/0252/2014, dt. 17.08.2017 by entertaining defective enquiry report of the enquiry officer, by userpting the powers of the disciplinary authority and for that the petitioner herein lost right of appeal is as highly illegal, arbitrary, unjust, improper, colorable exercise of power if necessary set-a side the same and consequently to direct the respondents to forthwith induct the services of the petitioner as Junior Assistant cum-Typist with all consequential benefits. \ re- lA NO: 1 OF 2018 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 to direct the respondents to continue the petitioner as Junior Assistant cum-Typist by suspending the operation of the present impugned order vide procgs. Rc.No. Zone-IV/0252/2014, dt. 17.08.2017 of the 1st respondent pending disposal of WP. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI SANTHAPUR SATYANARAYANA RAO Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 1 to 3: SRI U KANAKA RAJU (GP FOR SOCIAL WELFARE ) Counsel for the Respondent No.4: MS. ANITHA MESA (SC FOR APSWREIS) The Court made the following: ORDER 1 APHC010305412018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3396] FRIDAY,THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA WRIT PETITION NO: 13887/2018 Between; ...PETITIONER N.Ranganna, AND ...RESPONDENT(S) The State Of A P and Others Counsel for the Petitioner: 1 .SANTHAPUR SATYANARAYANA RAO Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. U KANAKA RAJU( GP FOR SOCIAL WELFARE ) The Court made the following: 2 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA WRIT PETITION NO: 13887/2018 ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India with the following prayer for; “...to issue a Writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus by declaring the entire action of the 1st respondent in issuing the present impugned order vide Procgs Rc.No.ZonelV/0252/2014 dated 17.08.2017 by entertaining defective enquiry report of the enquiry officer by userpting the powers of the disciplinary authority and for that the petitioner herein lost right of appeal is as highly illegal, arbitrary, unjust, improper, colorable exercise of power, if necessary, setaside the same and consequently to direct the respondents to forthwith re-induct the services of the petitioner as Junior Assistant-cum-Typist with all conssq^^ and pass...” "^ntial benefits 2. Heard Sri S. Satyanarayana Rao, learned Counsel for the Petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Social Welfare for the respondents. 3. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner would submit that the enquiry was conducted behind the back of the Petitioner and the Petitioner could not get any opportunity to cross examine the witnesses. It is also contended that the Respondent-Authorities failed to follow the Rules 20 and 21 of CCA Rules. Learned Counsel would further submit that the Petitioner worked as Junior Assistant -cum-Typist in the College of the 3'^^ respondent. Learned Counsel would further submit that since the respondent-authorities failed to follow the procedure established by law, the impugned proceedings on compulsory retirement has to be set aside. Learned Counsel would further submit that the i e., the Respondent No.1, prays to allow the Petition by setting consequentially direct the respondents as Junior Assistant -cum-Typist with would further submit that the 1®* respondent has passed the impugned proceedings so that the Petitioner lost one chance of appeal. Learned Counsel finally prays to allow the Petition. Petitioner has approached the Appellate Authority that was dismissed. Learned Counsel aside the impugned proceedings and to reinstate the services of the Petitioner all consequential benefits. Learned Counsel 4. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Social Welfare that the respondents have followed the procedure imposed the punishment of compulsory retirement, intervene in the proceedings. Learned Assistant Government further submit that the charge framed against the petitioner would submit under CCA Rules and Nothing is there to Pleader would is regarding missing of entries and the material i.e., 501 meters of Navy Blue cloth is an act of misappropriation of the cloth supplied by the Government. The Enquiry Authority rightly found him guilty. Thereafter, the respondent No.1 imposed the punishment of compulsory retirement. Learned Assistant Government Pleader would further submit that the petitioner is retired, the cause of action does not survive in this matter. 5. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner in reply would submit that the Petitioner has submitted his explanation to the effect that the entry in the stock register is erroneously made due to which the difference of stock is found by the Authorities. He is innocent. Learned authorities have not considered his explanation to impose the major penalty of compulsory retirement. Considering the submissions made and on perusal of the material on record, the fact remains that the Petitioner is retired from service, his explanation to the effect that there is no mention of supply of 528 meters of Navy Blue cloth to the School in the year 2008-09. The particulars of 528 meters of Navy Blue cloth to the School was erroneously taken in the stock register for the reasons not known to the Petitioner and this mistake has I I resulted though the quantity of 528 meters of Navy Blue cloth is misused. The further contention of the Petitioner is that the cloth was not actually delivered from the convener point to the School but it is wrongly mentioned in the stock register has no basis and substance to believe. There is no material in support of the contention that the enquiry officer has not followed the procedure under Rule 20 and 21 of CCA Rules. The impugned proceedings were issued on 17.08.2017. The Petitioner might have retired in the year 2019. The present petition is filed in the year 2018. As such, the respondent-auth orities after considering the enquiry report passed the impugned proceedings imposing the punishment of compulsory retirement. Be that as it may, the punishment of compulsory retirement does not take away the rights of the petitioner in respect of his retirement benefits, pension if any and other attending benefits. This Court makes it clear that the compulsory retirement does not affect the retirement benefits of the individual unless there is a statutory bar to the same. Nothing is brought to the notice of this Court that there is a bar under statute 6. 5 that because of the compulsory retirement, the Petitioner may forego his retirement benefits. In that view, this Court does not find any reason warranting interference in the impugned proceedings. 7. In the result, the Writ Petition is disposed of, with the above observations. Pending applications, if any, shall stand closed. Sd/- A. VENU GOPAL RAO ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY] SECTION OFFICER To 1. The Secretary, A.P. Social Welfare Residential Educational Institutions Society, Tadepally, Guntur. District. 2. The District Collector, Kurnool, Kurnool District. 3. The Principal A.P., Social welfare Residential Society/ Junior College Arikera, Aluru (M) Kurnool District. 4. The Secretary, A.P. Social Welfare Residential Educational Institutions Soceity, Tadepally, Guntur District. 5. One CC to Sri Santhapur Satyanarayana Rao, Advocate [OPUC] 6. Two CCs to GP for Social Welfare, High Court of Andhra Pradesh. [OUT] 7. One CC to Ms. Anitha Mesa, SC for APSWREIS, Advocate [OPUC] 8. Three CD Copies TF • > HIGH COURT DATED:21/03/2025 ORDER WP.No.13887 of 2018 DISPOSING OF THE W.P., WITHOUT COSTS