Supreme Court of India
V. PADMANABHAMversusGOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH & ORS.
- Citation
- 2009 INSC 952
- Decided
- 27 July 2009
- Disposal
- Dismissed
- Bench
- S B SINHA
Holding
Under Rule 9(2) of the Andhra Pradesh Pension Code, departmental proceedings initiated while the servant was in service continue after retirement as if the servant were still in service, making the continuation lawful.
Summary
V. Padmanabham, a Deputy Tehsildar and Director of Civil Supplies, was suspended in 1993 for supplying essential commodities meant for public distribution to private parties, causing a loss of about Rs.12.46 lakh to the State. A departmental enquiry found him guilty and dismissed him in 1994; his appeal was rejected. He later approached the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, which set aside the dismissal on the ground that the enquiry officer was not competent to frame charges. The High Court overturned the tribunal’s order, deeming him to have continued under suspension, and the matter remained pending when he superannuated. The Supreme Court examined whether disciplinary proceedings initiated before retirement could be continued after superannuation under Rule 9(2) of the Andhra Pradesh Pension Code. It held that the rule creates a legal fiction whereby such proceedings continue as if the employee were still in service, and therefore the continuation was lawful. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed.
Issues considered
- Whether departmental proceedings initiated before a government servant's superannuation can be continued after retirement under the Andhra Pradesh Pension Code.
- Whether the High Court erred in directing that the appellant be deemed to have continued under suspension.
- Whether the delay in the continuation of the proceedings bars their further adjudication.
Subjects
departmental proceedingssuperannuationpension codecontinuation of disciplinary actionpublic distributionessential commoditiessuspensionadministrative law
Judgment
[2009] 11 S.C.R. 455
V. PADMANABHAM A
v.
GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH & ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 4717 of 2009)
JULY 27, 2009
B
[S.8. SINHA AND DEEPAK VERMA, JJ]
• Andhra Pradesh Pension Code: r.9(2) - Departmental
proceedings can be continued despite superannuation.
c
Appellant was a Tehsidlar, Director of Civil Supplies:
While he was working in that capacity, essential
commodities meant for public distribution were supplied
to the private parties. The State by reason of acts of
omission and commission on the part of appellant was . 0
said to have suffered financial loss to the extent of Rs.12
t lacs. He was placed under suspension on 29.1.1993.
Departmental proceeding was initiated whereafter he was
found .guilty and an order of dismissal was passed on
21.10.1994. An appeal thereagainst was dismissed. He E
filed OA before tribunal which set aside the order of
dismissal on the premise that enquiry officer was not
competent to frame the charges. On appeal, High Court
set aside the order of tribunal. It held that though enquiry
• officer himself framed the charges which was contrary to
the rules 20 anEI 21 of APCS (CC & A) Rules however F
employee was under suspensi<;>n prior to the order of
dismissal, therefore tribunal ought not to have ordered
reiAstatement. It modified the order of reinstatement and
directed that appellant would be deemed to have
continued under suspension. The enquiry proceedings G
did not make much progress. He was allowed to
" superannuate.
Aggrieved appellant filed the present appeal. It was
455 H
456 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] ,1 S.C.R.
A contended for the appellant that departme~ntal
proceedings were initiated in 1992-93, this court should
not direct continuation of the departmental proceeding
any further.
Dismissing the appeal, the Court
B
HELD:1. The disciplinary proceeding was initiiated
against the appellant in terms of the provisions of the
Andhra Pradesh Civil Services (Classification, Control
and Appeal) Rules. Part-V of the said Rules lay down the
C procedure for imposing penalties. Indisputably, in the
departmental proceedings, it is incumbent to draw up the
substance of the imputations of misconduct or
misbehaviour into definite and distinct articles of charge
and a statement of the imputations of the miscondlllct or
D misbehaviour in support of each article of charge
containing the details as are specified therein. In terms
of Rules 9(2) of the Andhra Pradesh Pension Code the
disciplinary proceedings initiated against the appHllant
could continue. [Para 8) [460-D-F; 461-E]
E
2. Continuation of the departmental proceedings is
not illegal. The Pension Code raises a legal fictk>n in
terms whereof the departmental proceedings would be
deemed to have continued. The Tribunal passed an order
F in favour of the appellant on technical grounds. The High
Court, therefore, cannot be said to have committed any
illegality in passing the i.mpugned judgment. [Para' 12)
[463-E-G]
State of Madhya Pradesh v. Bani Singh 1990 Supp.
G SCC 738, distinguished.
State of UP. & Ors. v. Harihar Bholenath (2006) 1~: SCC
460; UCOBank & Anr. v. Rajinder Lal Capoor (2007) Ei SCC
694 and M. V. Bijlani v. Union of India & Anr. (2006) Ei SCC
H
- t
V. PADMANABHAM v. GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA
88, referred to.
PRADESH & ORS.
457
A
3. There was no delay in the matter of initiation of the ·
departmental proceedings. It was also concluded within
a reasonable time. The appellant preferred appeals
before the Collector in the year 1994. The said appeal was B
- dismissed by an order dated 21.10.1994. In the orders
passed by the disciplinary authority as also the Collector,
the matter was dealt with in great details. Each and every
~
aspect of the matter including defences raised by the
appellant had been taken into consideration. It has
specifically been noticed that various notices have been
c
issued to the appellant. The appellant, however, filed the
original application before the Tribunal in the year 1997.
It was disposed of by the Tribunal by a judgment and
order dated 2.1.2002. The State immediately filed a writ
petition before the High Court which was disposed of by D
1' an order dated 23.11.2004. It is during the pendency of
the matter before this Court, the appellant is said fo have
reached the age of superannuation. Therefore, delay
alone in a case of this nature should not be held to be
fatal in the matter of continuing the departmental E
proceeding as the charges against the appellant are
serious in nature and a large sum of money was to be
recovered from him. It is, thus, not expedient in the
• interest of justice that on the ground of delay alone, the
matter shoul.d be given a quietus. [Para 13] [464-G-H; 465- F
A-DJ
UP. State Sugar Corporation Ltd. & Ors. v. Kamal
Swaroop Tondon etc. (2008) 2 SCC 41, relied on.
Case Law Reference: G
-'• (2006) 13 sec 460 referred to Para 10
-
=r
(2001) 6 sec 694
(2006) s sec 88
referred to
referred to
Para 10
Para 11 H
458 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 11 S.C.R.
A 1990 Supp. SCC 738 distinguished Para 12
(2008) 2 sec 41 relied on Para 13
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.
4717 of 2009.
B
From the Judgment & Order dated 23.11.2004 of the High
Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in Writ Petition No.
23049 of 2002.
C D. Rama Krishna Reddy and Asha Gopalan Nair for the
Appellants.
I. Venkatanarayana, Manoj Saxena, Rajneesh Kr. Singh,
T.V. George for the Respondents.
D The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
S.B. SINHA, J. 1. Leave granted.
2. Appellant herein was a Deputy Tehsildar, Director of
Civil Supplies, Punganoor in the District of Chittoor. He worked
E in the said capacity from 11.5.1992 to 21.1.1993. During the
aforementioned period, Essential Commodities meant for
public distribution were supplied to the private parties; the price
whereof is stated to be Rs.12,46,523.60.
He was placed under suspension on 29.1.1993. A
F departmental proceeding was initiated. An enquiry officer was
appointed for the said purpose. He was found guilty in the said
departmental proceedings, relying on or on the basis whereof,
an order of dismissal was passed on 21.10.1994.
G 3. An appeal preferred by the appellant thereagainst was
also dismissed. He filed an original application before the·
Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal. On the premise that
the enquiry officer was not competent to frame the charges, the
order of dismissal was set aside. -
H
., V. PADMANABHAM v. GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA 459
PRADESH & ORS. [S.8.SINHA, J.]
+
4. The State filed a writ petition thereagainst before the A
High Court. By reason of the impugned judgment, the said
judgment and order of the Tribunal was set aside, directing :
"We have considered the contentions of the learned
counsel with reference to the APCS (CC & A) Rules. As
B
can be seen from the Rules, appointment of Enquiry
Officer comes into play only after the explanation is filed
te. the charge sheet and decision is to be taken by the
Disciplinary Authority to conduct further enquiry. In the
instant case, the Enquiry Officer had himself framed the
charges which goes contrary to the Rules 20 and 21 of the
c
APCS (CC & A) Rules. Under those circumstances, we
do not find any ground to interfere with the order of the
Tribunal, but, however, it is contended by the learned
Government Pleader that giving direction to the
Department to reinstate the petitioner is only misconceived. D
Admittedly, the employee wa? under suspension prior to
the order of dismissal. Under those circumstances, the
Tribunal ought not to have directed reinstatement of the
petitioner. We are in agreement with the contention raised
by the learned Government Pleader. When further action E
is sought to be taken in accordance with the Rules, the
Tribunal ought to have left the matter to the discretion of
the authorities. Moreover, in the instant case, the employee
.. was already under suspension from 1993 and the order
of dismissal was set aside on the technical ground that the F
Enquiry Officer was not competenrto frame the charges.
Under those circumstances, we are inclined to modify the
order relating to reinstatement and we direct that 1st
respondent shall be deemed to have continued under
suspension impugned order." · G
~ 5. Appellant is before us aggrieved by and dissatisfied
with the said directions.
6. Indisputably, the enquiry proceedings did not make much
.,
,•
H
460 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 11 S.C.R.
A progress. He was allowed to superannuate.
It is on the aforementioned premise, Mr. D. Rama Krishna
Reddy, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant,
would contend that the impugned judgment of the High Court
B should be set aside and the disciplinary proceedings may not
be directed to be continued.
7. Mr. I. Venkatanarayana, learned senior counsel
appearing on behalf of the State, however, urged that despite
superannuation of the appellant, the departmental proceedings
C which were pending against him must be held to be continuing
in terms of the provisions of Andhra Pradesh Pension Code
and, thus, there is no legal impediment in imposing any
punishment withdrawing the whole or part of the pension so as
to enable the State go recover the amount which it suffered
D owing to the acts of omission and commission on the part of
the appellant.
8. The disciplinary proceeding was initiated against the
appellant in terms of the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Civil
E Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules. Part-V of
the said Rules lay down the procedure for imposing penalties.
Indisputably, in the departmental proceedings, it is incumbent
to draw up the substance of the imputations of misconduct or
misbehaviour into definite and distinct articles of charge and a
statement of the imputations of the misconduct or misbehaviour
F in support of each article of charge containing the details as
are specified therein.
The Administrative Tribunal in its judgment and order dated
2.1.2002 has held as under :
G
'.'It is seen from the records that the charges were framed
by the enquiry officer who is the RDO. RDO is neither the
appointment authority nor the disciplinary authority for the
Dy. Tahsildars. According to Rules 20 and 21 it is only the
H
V. PADMANABHAM v. GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA 461
PRADESH & ORS. [S.B.SINHA, J.)
t
apj)ointing authority/Disciplinary authority who has to frame A
charges against the applicant duly furnishing him the
documents prescribed therein namely the basis for the
charges. List of documents and witnesses to be examined
etc .. this was not done. Th9 Collector ought to have framed
the Charges and called for the applicant's explanation. In B
case he was not satisfied then only he ought to have
appointed the enquiry officer. The very appointment of the
enquiry officer straight way by the Collector rendered the
·• proceedings void as the procedure laid down under the
OCA Rules is a statutory one." c
In view of the aforementioned findings of the Administrative
Tribunal itself, the State was entitled to initiate a fresh
departmental proceeding. It furthermore appears from the
records that the appellant himself had admitted distribution of
a part of the essential commodities meant for public distribution D
to private persons. The State by reason of the aforementioned
acts of omission and commission on the part of the appellant
is said to have suffered financial loss to the extent of more than
Rs.12,00,000/-.
E
It has not been disputed before us that in terms of Rules
· 9(2) of the Andhra Pradesh Pension Code the disciplinary
proceedings initiated against the appellant c11uld continue.
~ 9. Rule 9(2)(a) reads as under :
F
"9. Right of Government to withhold or withdraw
pension:-(1) ...
(2)(a) The departmental proceedings referred to in sub-rule
(1 ), if instituted while the Government servant was in G
service whether before his .retirement or during his re-
employment shall, after the final retirement of the
• Government servant, be deemed to be proceedings under
this rule and shall be continued and concluded by the
H
462 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 11 S.C.R.
A authority by which they were commenced in the same
manner as if the Government servant had continued in
service:
Provided that where the departmental proceedings
are instituted by an authority subordinate to the State
B
Government, that authority shall submit a report recording
its findings to the State Government.
10. Indisputably, therefore, the departmental proceedings
which have been pending against the appellant do not suffer
C from any legal infirmity and in law would be deemed to have
been continuing.
In State of UP. & Ors. v. Harihar Bholenath [(2006) 13
SCC 460], this Court stated :
D "10. A departmental proceeding can be initiated for
recovery of amount suffered by the State exchequer owing .
to the acts of omission or commission of a delinquent
employee in three different situations:
E (i) when a disciplinary proceeding is initiated and
concluded against a delinquent employee before
he reaches his age of superannuation;
(ii) when a proceeding is initiated before the
...
delinquent officer reached his age of
F
superannuation but the same has not been
concluded and despite the superannuation of the
employee, an order of recovery of the amount from
the pension and gratuity is passed; and
G (iii) an enquiry is initiated after the delinquent employee
reaches his age of superannuation."
In UCO Bank & Anr. v. Rajinder Lal Capoor [(2007) 6
SCC 694], this Court stated :
H
V. PADMANABHAM v. GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA 463
PRADESH & ORS. [S.B.SINHA, J.]
t
"21. The aforementioned Regulation, however, could be A
invoked only when the disciplinary proceedings had clearly
been initiated prior to the respondent's ceas::ig to be in
service. The terminologies used therein are of seminal
importance. Only when a disciplinary proceeding has been
initiated against an officer of the bank despite his attaining B
the age of superannuation, can the disciplinary proceeding
be allowed on the basis of the legal fiction created
thereunder i.e. continue "as if he was in service". Thus, only
when a valid departmental proceeding is initiated by
reason of the legai fiction raised in terms of the said c
provision, the delinquent officer would be deemed to be
in service although he has reached his age of
superannuation. The departmental proceeding, it is' trite
law, is not initiated merely by issuance of a show-cause
notice. It is initiated only when a charge-sheet is issued."
D
11. Mr. Rama Krishna Reddy, however, would urge that
having regard to the fact that the departmental proceedings
were initiated
_,. in the year 1992-93, this Court should not direct
continuation of the departmental proceedings any further.
Strong reliance in this behalf has been placed on M. V. Bijlani E
v. Nion of India & Anr. [(2006) 5 SCC 88].
12. We have noticed heretobefore that continuation of the
departmental proceedings is not illegal. The Pension Code
\..
raises a legal fiction in terms whereof the departmental F
proceedings would be deemed to have continued: The Tribunal
has passed an order in favour of the appellant on technical
grounds. The High Court, therefore, in our opinion, cannot be
said to have committed any illegality in passing the impugned
judgment.
G
It may be true that in Bijlani (supra), this Court relying on
or on the basis of an earlier judgment of this Court in State of
Madhya Pradesh v. Bani Singh [1990 Supp. SCC 738], held
as under:
H
464 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 11 S.C.R.
A "16. So far as the second charge is concerned, it has not
been shown as to what were the duties of the appellant in
terms of the prescribed rules or otherwise. Furthermore,
it has not been shown either by the disciplinary authority
or the Appellate Authority as to how and in what manner
B the maintenance of ACE-8 Register by way of sheets which
were found attached to the estimate file were not
appropriate so as to arrive at the culpability or otherwise
of the appellant. The Appellate Authority in its order stated
that the appellant was not required to prepare ACE-8
c Register twice. The appellant might have prepared another
set of register presumably keeping in view tile fact that he
was asked to account for the same on the basis of the
materials placed on records. The Tribunal as also the High
Court failed to take into consideration that the disciplinary
proceedings were initiated after six years and they
D
continued for a period of seven years and, thus, initiation
of the disciplinary proceedings as also continuance thereof
after such a long time evidently prejudiced the delinquent
officer."
E In that case, the disciplinary proceedings were in1tated
five years after the appellant therein had handed over charge.
It was opined that he was not having possession of any
document. Seven years' time was taken to complete the
enquiry. Appellate Authority also took five years in disposing
F of the appeal. None of the authorities had taken into
consideration as to whether the procedure laid down under the
Rules has been followed or not. It is in the aforementioned fact
situation, such a direction was issued.
13. This case, however, stands on a different footing. There
G was no delay in the matter of initiation of th~ departmental
proceedings. It was also concluded within a reasonable time.
The appellant preferred appeals before the Collector 1n the year
1994. The said appeal was dismissed by an order dated
H
V. PADl'v1ANABHAM v. GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA 465
.PRADESH & ORS. [S.B.SINHA, J.]
21.10.1994. In the orders passed by the disciplinary authority A
as also the Collector, the matter has been dealt with in great
details. Each and every aspect of the matter i;1cluding defences
raised by the appellant had been taken into consideration. It .
has specifically been noticed that various notices have been
issued to the appellant. B
The appellant, however, filed the original application before
the Tribunal in the year 1997. It W?S disposed of by the Tribunal
by a judgment and order dated 2.1.2002. The State
immediately filed a writ petition before the High Court which C
was disposed of by an order dated 23.11.2004. It is during the
pendency of the matter before us, the appellant is said to have
reached the age of superannuation. We, therefore, are of the
view that delay alone in a case of this nature should not be held
to be fatal in the matter of continuing the departmental
proceeding as the charges against the appellant are serious D
in nature and a large sum of money have to be recovered from
" the appellant. It is, thus, not expedient in the interest of justice
that on the ground of delay alone, the matter should be given a
quietus. We may place on record that a Division Bench of this
Court in UP. State Sugar Corporation Ltd. & Ors. v. Kamal E
Swaroop Tandon [(2008) 2 SCC 41], held as under:
"27. In UCO Bank v. Sanwar Mal, the Court held that two
concepts: (i) resignation; and (ii) retirement were different
and employed for different purposes and in different F
contexts. Resignation brings about complete cessation of
master and servant relationship, but retirement does not
do so. In case of retirement, master and servant
relationship continues for grant of retiral benefits.
28. If it is so, the appellant Corporation, in our opinion, is G
right in submitting that the proceedings could have been
continued after the retirement of the respondent employee
as far as the financial loss caused to the Corporation
because of negligence on the part of employee and the
H .
466 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2009] 11 S.C.R.
A benefit claimed by the respondent workman on his terminal
benefits are concerned."
14. We respectfully agree with the aforementioned dicta
having regard to the fact situation obtaining in the instant case.
B 15. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed. However, in the
facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order
as to costs.
D.G. Appeal dismissed.
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "departmental proceedings"Sign in to search