Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
E. Venkata Rao vs Government Of A.P. on 5 February, 2020
Author: T. Rajani
Bench: T. Rajani
SMT. JUSTICE T. RAJANI
WRIT PETITION Nos.5610 OF 2019 and 17888 of 2012
COMMON ORDER:
Writ Petition No.5610 of 2019 is filed, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking to declare the action of the respondents in not releasing full pension and other pensionary benefits such as Provident Fund, Gratuity, Commutation of Pension etc., as illegal.
2. Writ Petition No.17888 of 2012 is filed, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking to declare the proceedings No.B1/2362/2009, dated 03.2.2012 issued by the 4th respondent-College, removing the petitioner from service, as illegal.
3. Heard the counsel for the petitioner and the counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents, in both the writ petitions. Since the subject matter in both the writ petitions is one and the same, the writ petitions are being disposed of by common order, referring the parties in W.P. No.5610 of 2019.
4. The counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner, who was working as Watchman in Sri Venkateswara Junior College, Bhimadole, was initially suspended from service, on the allegation of theft of Rs.1,000/- during counting of Hundial, with effect from 18.11.2009 and thereafter termination order dated 03.2.2012 was passed, against which he filed Writ Petition No.17888 of 2012. The High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad, by virtue of the order 18.6.2012 in WPMP No.22906 of 2012, 2 suspended the impugned order dated 03.2.2012. In pursuance of the said order, the petitioner was reinstated into service and was allowed to continue in service till the date of his retirement i.e., on 30.6.2014. The petitioner was accorded provisional pension @ 80% withholding the balance of pension i.e., 20% pension, gratuity and commutation value of pension, by virtue of the letter dated 29.11.2014 addressed by the District Audit Officer, Eluru to the Joint Commissioner and Executive Officer, S.V.S. Devasthanam, Dwaraka Tirumala.
5. The counsel for the petitioner submits that criminal case ended in acquittal by virtue of the judgment dated 13.10.2016 in C.C. No.345 of 2014 on the file of the Court of Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Bhimadole. A copy of the judgment is also filed. Hence, there cannot be any reason for the respondents to withhold the balance of pension i.e., 20% pension, gratuity and commutation value of pension. The counsel for the respondents contends that the Executive Officer addressed a letter dated 29.4.2017 to the Government in which it is mentioned that the petitioner was arrested in respect of a charge of theft and it is also stated that in that connection a letter was addressed to the Regional Joint Director of College Education, Rajahmundry seeking clarification to initiate enquiry under Section 79 of Andhra Pradesh Education Act, 1982, as directed by the High Court. In turn the R.I.O. of B.I.O. stated that "approach the Commissioner, High Education" for appropriate decision / direction in the matter. In pursuance of the same, a letter was addressed to the Commissioner of Higher 3 Education, in response to which, the Regional Joint Director, College Education, Rajahmundry was directed to take up the enquiry under Section 79 of the Act and report compliance. The direction was placed before the RJD, Rajahmundry, who in turn directed to approach the Government to take necessary action, as the Government alone is the competent authority under Section 79(5) of the Act and Rule 9(1) of the A.P. Revised Pension Rules, 1980. The vehement contention of the 3rd respondent's counsel is that since the matter is pending with the Government, the 3rd respondent is not in a position to take any further action. But, the fact remains that the letter was addressed to the Government as on 29.4.2017 and the 3rd respondent-College has not even issued reminders. Simply because of lethargy of the 3rd respondent in seeking instructions and the lethargy of the Government in instructing the 3rd respondent appropriately, the petitioner cannot be made a scapegoat, more so, when the stoppage of the pensionary benefits is only on the ground of pendency of criminal case and when the said criminal case ends in acquittal. The 3rd respondent is, however, at liberty and if necessary to cause enquiry in accordance with law, but till then stoppage of the balance pensionary benefits cannot be permitted.
6. Hence, this Court deems it fit to direct the 3rd respondent- College to release the balance of pension i.e., 20% pension, gratuity and commutation value of pension of the petitioner, within a period of eight (8) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
4
7. With the above directions, the writ petitions are disposed of. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending consideration if any in the writ petitions shall stand closed.
______________ T. RAJANI, J February 05, 2020.
YS