Supreme Court - Daily Orders
Dr.Yellinedi Sagareswara Rao vs Dr. S.K. Jawahar Reddy on 9 October, 2014
Bench: J. Chelameswar, A.K. Sikri
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CONTEMPT PETITION(C) NO(s). 327-328 OF 2014
IN
SLP(C) NO(s).34970-34971 OF 2013
DR.YELLINEDI SAGARESWARA RAO Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
DR. S.K. JAWAHAR REDDY Respondent(s)
O R D E R
The petitioner, who is erstwhile employee of the State of Andhra Pradesh, has filed this contempt petition alleging therein that respondent/contemnor has not complied with the directions contained in the orders dated 6.5.2014 passed by this Court in Special Leave Petition (Civil) No(s). 34970-34791 of 2013.
The controversy pertains to grant of pension to the petitioner and treatment which has to be given to him for the period from 7.5.2001 to 30.11.2003 when the petitioner was facing suspension. It may be mentioned at this stage itself that the Government has passed orders dated 10.7.2014 and 27.9.2014. Whether these orders fully comply with the directions of this Court or not is the question.
Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by Deepak MansukhaniBefore we come to the falcrum of the dispute in that Date: 2014.10.14 17:40:30 IST Reason: behalf, it would be appropriate to traverse the minimal facts that are required to understand the controversy 1 involved.
The petitioner, while working as Chief Executive Officer, Zila Praja Parishad, Vizianagaram District was trapped on 5.5.2001 and placed under suspension vide orders of the even date. Decision was taken to prosecute him for the offence punishable under Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Prosecution was lodged and the petitioner was tried for the offences under the said Act. Special Judge, Visakhapatnam, after the trial, passed the judgment dated 21.01.2004 convicting and sentencing the petitioner. By that time, the petitioner had already attained the age of superannuation, which was 30th November, 2003. In these circumstances, consequent on the aforesaid conviction, the competent authority passed the orders of withholding the entire pension and full gratuity on permanent basis. Petitioner challenged the conviction order by approaching the High Court of Andhra Pradesh. The appeal filed by him was decided in his favour as the High Court vide its judgment dated 4.3.2011 set aside the conviction and sentence recorded by the trial Court. After the acquittal of the petitioner, the Government passed G.O. dated 22.9.2012 dropping further action and also withdrew the orders dated 31.12.2005 vide which pension and the gratuity of the petitioner were withheld. By same order, it was decided to regularise the period of suspension from 7.5.2001 to 30.11.2003 as “Not on Duty” under FR 54(A)(3) and Proviso to FR 54(B) (7). It is pertinent to point out that this was done on the ground that there were other some disciplinary 2 proceedings pending against the petitioner at that time. The petitioner filed a complaint before the Lokayukta, Hyderabad against the treatment of suspension period from 7.5.2001 to 30.11.2003 as “not on duty”. Lokayukta passed the orders dated 6.12.2012 directing to treat the suspension period as on duty and calculate his terminal benefits and sanction of the payment of the amount. The State Government challenged the orders of the Lokayukta before the High Court and High Court set aside the orders of the Lokayukta vide its judgment dated 16.8.2013 on the ground that Lokayukta had no jurisdiction to deal with such a matter.
It would be relevant to mention at this stage that insofar as second disciplinary proceedings are concerned, which were pending against the petitioner at that time, the petitioner had challenged those proceedings before the A.P. Administrative Tribunal in O.A. No. 3123 of 2013. That O.A. of the petitioner was allowed as the Tribunal quashed the disciplinary proceedings on the ground of inordinate delay by its judgment dated 22.1.2014. This order attained finality as no challenge was laid thereto by the Govt.
Insofar as order of the High Court setting aside the directions of the Lokayukta is concerned, the same was challenged by the petitioner by filing special leave petition nos. 34970-34971 of 2013. These special leave petitions were disposed of by this Court on 6.5.2014 directing the Government to release the pension of the 3 petitioner with interest @ 9% per annum from 1.7.2011.
The Government has passed orders dated 10.7.2014 sanctioning the payment and pensionery benefits including gratuity along with interest @ 9% per annum from July 2011. Insofar as period from 7.5.2001 to 30.11.2003 is concerned, the Government has ordered to regularise the said suspension period as not duty under provisio 54(B) (7). It is followed by another orders dated 27.9.2014 wherein it is mentioned that after examination of the matter, the Government has decided to treat the aforesaid period from 7.5.2001 to 30.11.2003 as “Not on Duty”, as extraordinary leave and after exhaustion of all available leave and to count for the purpose of notional increments and pension.
Insofar as pension is concerned, though appropriate orders are passed, we are informed that no amount towards pension has been released till date. In view thereof, we direct the respondents to release the amount of pension including gratuity along with interest @ 9% from July 2011, within four weeks from today.
Coming to the issue of treating the suspension from 7.5.2001 to 30.11.2003 as “not on duty”, we find from reading of the orders dated 10.7.2014 and 27.9.2014, that no reasons are given as to why the said period is treated as “not on duty”. As pointed out above, the petitioner was fully exonerated by the High Court insofar as case under Prevention of Corruption Act, is concerned. After 4 the said acquittal, the punishment order passed withholding the pension and gratuity were also withdrawn by the Government of its own. However, at this stage, this period was treated as “not on duty” period only because of the reason that second departmental inquiry was pending against him. That reason also evaporated when the Tribunal quashed the disciplinary proceedings in the second case. Therefore, there is no reason not to treat the aforesaid period from 7.5.2001 to 30.11.2003 as on duty.
Accordingly, we direct the respondents to treat the aforesaid period on duty for all purposes including for the purpose of pay and allowance. The arrears of salary for this period shall be worked out and released to the petitioner within four weeks.
The contempt petitions are disposed of accordingly.
…..................J. (J. CHELAMESWAR) …..................J. (A.K. SIKRI) NEW DELHI OCTOBER 09, 2014.
5 ITEM NO.5 COURT NO.8 SECTION XIIA
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
CONMT.PET.(C) No. 327-328/2014 In SLP(C) No. 34970-34971/2013 DR.YELLINEDI SAGARESWARA RAO Petitioner(s) VERSUS DR. S.K. JAWAHAR REDDY Respondent(s) (with office report) Date : 09/10/2014 These petitions were called on for hearing today.
CORAM :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J. CHELAMESWAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K. SIKRI For Petitioner(s) Petitioner-in-person For Respondent(s) Mr. Guntur Prabhakar,Adv. Ms. Prerna Singh, Adv.
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R The contempt petitions are disposed of in terms of the signed order.
(DEEPAK MANSUKHANI) (INDU BALA KAPUR)
COURT MASTER COURT MASTER
(Signed order is placed on the file)
6
7
8