1

*HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI

+WRIT PETITION Nos.19438/2022 & 21912/2022

WP No.19438/2022

Between:

#Dasari Nagaraju ...PETITIONER

AND

$The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S)

JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED ON 28.03.2025

THE HON’BLE DR.JUSTICE K. MANMADHA RAO

1. Whether Reporters of Local newspapers

may be allowed to see the Judgments?

- Yes -

2. Whether the copies of judgment may be marked to Law

Reporters/Journals

- Yes -

3. Whether Their Ladyship/Lordship wish to see the fair

copy of the Judgment?

- Yes -

___________________________________

DR.JUSTICE K. MANMADHA RAO

2

* THE HON’BLE DR.JUSTICE K. MANMADHA RAO

+WRIT PETITION Nos.19438/2022 & 21912/2022

% 28.03.2025

WP No.19438/2022

# Between:

#Dasari Nagaraju ...PETITIONER

AND

$The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S)

! Counsel for the Petitioner : Smt. G. Kavitha

Sri C. RAghu

Smt V Sesha Kumari

! Counsel for Respondents: GP for Services-I

GP for Mines & Geology

<Gist :

>Head Note:

? Cases referred: 1. (2013) 12 Supreme Court Cases 210

APHC010325402022

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

FRIDAY ,THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF MARCH

TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE K MANMADHA RAO

WRIT PETITION NO: 19438/2022

WP No.19438/2022:

Between:

Dasari Nagaraju

The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others

Counsel for the Petitioner:

1.

KAVITHA GOTTIPATI

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

1.

GP FOR HOME

2.

GP FOR SERVICES I

3.

GP FOR MINES AND GEOLOGY

The Court made the following:

COMMON ORDER:

As the issue involved in

are being taken up for hearing as well as disposed of by way of this Common

Order.

3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH

AT AMARAVATI

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

FRIDAY ,THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF MARCH

TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

PRESENT

THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE K MANMADHA RAO

WRIT PETITION NO: 19438/2022 & 21912/2022

...PETITIONER

AND

The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others

...RESPONDENT(S)

Counsel for the Petitioner:

KAVITHA GOTTIPATI

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

GP FOR MINES AND GEOLOGY

The Court made the following:

As the issue involved in both the writ petitions is one and the same, they

are being taken up for hearing as well as disposed of by way of this Common

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH

[3310]

THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE K MANMADHA RAO

...PETITIONER

...RESPONDENT(S)

writ petitions is one and the same, they

are being taken up for hearing as well as disposed of by way of this Common

4

2. Since the facts in both the writ petitions are similar and identical,

therefore WP No.19438 of 2022 is taken as lead case, and the facts therein

hereinafter will be referred to for convenience.

3. Brief facts of the case are that, while the petitioner was working as

Assistant Director of Mines & Geology for Srikakulam, he executed a lease

deed acting on behalf of the Government dated 23.2.2004 in favour of M/s

Trimex Industries Ltd. After long lapse of time, certain allegations were made

by the 2

nd

respondent in his vigilance report No.17(C.No.888/V&E/NR/2014),

dated 11.3.2016 stating that the petitioner has submitted an explanation that

the District Collector, Srikakulam has granted revenue clearance for 10

Sq.KMs for prospecting license. The same area was granted for mining lease

in favour of M/s Trimex Industries Ltd., and thus the same NOC holds good

and also stated that precautionary measures taken during the execution of

lease deed duly incorporating all the conditions stipulated in G.O.Ms.No.31 of

Industries & Commerce, dated 6.2.2004, and therefore, there is no fault on the

petitioner’s side. But the said explanation was not accepted by merely stating

that the same is not tenable. In the said report, it was also stated that Clause

(e) contains findings. A close perusal of the same shows that at serial No.1

that an allegation has been made against the petitioner that he has executed

the lease before obtaining the clearance from Revenue, Forest Department

and Patta holders against the conditions of G.O.Ms.No.31, dated 6.2.2004

without furnishing any material particulars. At Clause No.5 it is stated that the

official of Mines & Geology Department had allowed mining operations and

5

issued transmit permissions for transportation. Challenging the said report

dated 11.3.2016 the petitioner filed WP No.44571 of 2018 before this Court

and the same was disposed of and directed the respondents No.2 and 4 to

reconsider the report dated 11.3.2016 in the light of the subsequent report of

the District Collector, dated 17.11.2018, the District Collector had stated that

Ac 387.72 cents of Vatsavalasa village of Gara Mandal, Srikaulam is not a

revenue land and it belongs to Forest Department. Pursuant to the said

directions of this Court, the 2

nd

respondent has submitted a fresh report dated

21.03.2019. Basing on the above report dated 21.03.2019 the 3

rd

respondent

issued proceedings Lr.No.18314/E1/1984 dated 13.12.2019 vide letter

addressed to the Accountant General, who is 4

th

respondent herein stating

that the Government has sanctioned provisional pension 75% vide

G.O.Rt.No.318 dated 26.11.2019 under Rule 52(1)(a)&(b) of A.P. Revised

Pension Rules, 1980.

While the things stood thus, the 1

st

respondent without application of

mind and without reference to the subsequent vigilance report dated

21.3.2019 where under the earlier vigilance report dated 11.3.2016 was

modified to the effect that the decision to take necessary action against the

officials has to be reviewed. Such a review exercise has not been

undertaken prior to issuance of the impugned G.O.Rt.No.154, dated

28.6.2019 under which the petitioner was allowed to retire from service. the

said G.O.Rt.No.154, dated 28.6.2019 only refers to the earlier vigilace report

dated 11.3.2016 but not the subsequent vigilance report dated 21.3.2019

6

though it was available as on 28.6.2019. Later G.O.Rt No.318, dated

26.11.2019 has been issued post retirement of the petitioner on 30.06.2019.

the petitioner mainly contended that as per the provisions contained in the

A.P. Revised Pension Rules, 1980, he is entitled for full pension and the

respondents do not have any right to withhold his pension in part of in hold.

Though the petitioner has submitted a detailed representations dated

5.6.2018, 25.2.2019, 18.2.2022 and 22.6.2022 claiming full pension and

objecting to withholding of part pension, no action has been taken by the

respondents. Hence the present WP No.19438 of 2022 came to be filed.

4. This Court, vide order dated 07.07.2022, while issuing Notice before

admission, directed the 1

st

respondent to deal with the representations dated

25.02.2019 and 29.6.2022 of the petitioner, in accordance with law, if the said

representations are received by the 1

st

respondent and they are pending

before him.

5. In pursuance of the directions of this Court, the 1

st

respondent has

filed vacate stay petition vide I.A No.2 of 2022 before this Court. In the said

petition, while denying all the allegations made in the petition, stated that in

the light of the interim order of this Hon'ble High Court in WP No.19438 of

2022, the GA (V&E), in their report dt.11.3.2016 has informed that the

Vigilance and Enforcement Dept., has conducted an enquiry on petition filed

by Sri Mourya Sunkavalli, Hyderabad against M/s Trimex Industries Limited

for the illegal mining of Beach Sand minerals like ilmenite, Garnet, Zircon,

Rutile, Silliminite and Leucoxene etc., over an extent of 7.20 Sq. Kms(1777.74

7

Acres) in different survey numbers of Vastavalasa & Tonangi villages,

Gara(M), Srikakulam district. Among other things, the GA (V&E) Report

recommended to take necessary action against the petitioner who executed

and issued work order including disputed area of 387.72 acres against the

stipulated conditions in G.O.Ms.No.31, dt.06.02.2004. It was also requested

to take necessary action for major penalty against the petitioner. In the

meantime, based on the report of Vigilance and Enforcement report, dt:

11.03.2016 lease held by M/s Trimex Sands Pvt Ltd was terminated vide

G.O.Ms.No.134, Industries & Commerce(M-III) Department, dt:28.11.2018.

Aggrieved by the order, the lease holder filed W.P. No.44571 of 2018 before

this Hon'ble High Court and this Court has granted interim order in I.A.No.2 of

2018 and directed the Vigilance Commissioner, APVC and the Director

General (Vigilance & Enforcement) to reconsider the vigilance report, dt:

11.03.2016 in view of the subsequent report of the District Collector dated:

17.11.2018 and act in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible.

In compliance of the above orders passed in I.A.No.2 of 2018 in

W.P.No.44571/2018, the GA (V&E) Dept has furnished the revised Vigilance

report No.17, dated 21.03.2019, wherein it was recommended to set aside the

recommendations at Para D(1) of V&E Report (pertaining to Revenue

Department) and review the earlier recommendations at Para D(2) (pertaining

to Industries and Commerce Department) as deemed fit. Subsequently, the

3rd respondent was requested to examine and furnish his specific

recommendations on the revised report of GA (V&E) Dept., vide

8

Memo.No.4149/Vig.A1/2016, dated.18.02.2020. The 3rd respondent vide

letter, dated 07.07.2021 has requested to drop the action proposed by the

V&E Dept., vide its report dated 11.03.2016 against the officials of Mines &

Geology Dept. However, the Government after careful examination of the

material available has decided to file criminal cases against retired officials

including the petitioner as departmental action could not be initiated against

retired officials for the irregularity committed as per Rule 9(2) (b) (ii) of A.P.

Revised Pension Rules, 1980. The 3rd respondent has also been instructed to

take action on the same lines vide Memo.No.4149/Vig.A1/2016,

dt.13.07.2022.

It is further stated in the affidavit that, after careful examination, and

taking the report submitted by the 3rd respondent into consideration, the

representations of the petitioner dated 25.02.2019 and 29.06.2022 were

disposed of, in compliance of the interim orders issued in this WP, vide Lr. No.

IND/145/2019-VIG, dated 26.09.2022 stating that his request cannot be

considered in view of the pendency of the disciplinary cases pending against

him as per G.O.Rt.No.1097, Finance dt.22.06.2000 & Planning (FW-Pen.I)

Department. Therefore, there are no grounds to allow the writ petition and

devoid of merits and the may be dismissed.

6. Aggrieved by the Memo of the 3

rd

respondent vide

Memo.No.4149/Vig.A1/2016, dt.13.07.2022, the petitioner and 3 others have

filed another WP No.21912 of 2022 before this Court.

9

7. This Court vide order dated 22.07.2022, in WP No.21912 of 2022,

while issuing Notice before admission, has directed the respondents not to file

criminal complaints against the petitioners pursuant to the Memo dated

13.07.2022 of the 1

st

respondent pending further orders. It was also held that

the respondents are at liberty to proceed against the petitioners in accordance

with law.

8. In pursuance of the interim order dated 22.07.2022 in WP No.21912

of 2022, the respondents No.1 and 4 have filed Vacate stay petition vide IA

No.1 of 2024 in WP No.21912 of 2022 stating that the then District Collector,

Srikakulam has issued revenue clearance in favour of M/s. Trimex Industries

Limited for an extent of 1390.02 Acres against 1777.74 Acts in Vastavalasa

and Tonangi Village, Gara Mandal Srikakulam vide Lr Dis No.1852/2002 H3,

daed 24.10.2005 the then ADM&G i.e., the petitioner No.1 herein is bound to

modify work order, execute, sketch and restrict the mining operations from

1777.74 Acres to 1390.02 acres of various survey numbers in Vastavalasa

and Tonangi Village, Gara Mandal, Srikakulam district. However, he did not

modify the order. Further, the petitioners No.2 to 4 herein have issued

dispatch permits for transportation of beach sand minerals within the disputed

area of 387.72 acres in violation of the conditions stipulated under

G.O.Ms.No.31 I&C (M.III) Department, dated 6.2.2004 which resulted in illegal

excavation/transportation of Beach sand minerals. In view of the above

circumstances, the 3

rd

respondent was requested to examine and furnish his

specific recommendations on the revised report of GA (V&E) Department vide

10

Memo No.4149/Vig.A1/2016 dated 18.02.2020 keeping view the orders of this

Court and revised report of V&E Department. Subsequently, it was decided to

initiate criminal action against the retired employees as per para (5) of

G.O.Rt.No.1097daed 22.6.2000 wherein it is stated that “if any irregularity of a

retired employee is noticed after his retirement and no departmental

proceedings can be instituted under sub rule (2) (b) of rule 9 of A.P. Revised

Pension Rules, 1980 the department can initiate criminal action against the

retired officer or action under the A.P. Revenue Recovery Act, 1864 to recover

the loss if any caused to the Government by him.” Hence, the 3rd respondent

was instructed vide Govt. Memo. No.4149/Vig.A1/2016, dt:13.07.2022 to file

criminal cases against retired officials viz., (1) Sri D. Naga Raju, the then

ADM&G, Srikakulam (2) Sri V. Koteswara Raju, the then ADM&G, Srikakulam

(3) Sri R. Golla, the then ADM&G, Srikakulam (4) Sri G.V.V.S.Chowdary, the

then ADM&G, Srikakulam (5) Sri Hanumantha Rao, the then Asst. Geologist,

O/o ADM&G, Srikakulam and (6) Sri S V Ramana Rao, the then ADM&G

Srikakulam, since departmental action could not be initiated against them for

the irregularity committed as per Rule 9 (2) (b) (ii) of A.P. Revised Pension

Rules, 1980, and to initiate departmental action against two (2) in service

officials viz., Sri K.L.V Prasad, the then ADM&G, Srikakulam and Sri R.

Thammunaidu, the then Asst. Geologist, O/o ADM&G, Srikakulam for issuing

transit permits to M/s East West Mineral Sands Private Limited (M/s Trimex

Industries Ltd) for transportation of Beach sand minerals from the disputed

area of 387.72 acres of Vatsavalasa village of Gara Mandal, Srikakulam

11

District. Therefore, there is no illegality or infirmity in issuing the Govt. Memo.

No.4149/Vig.A1/2016 dated 13.07.2022 since impugned order was issued as

per the G.O.Rt.No.1097 Finance & Planning (FW-Pen.I) Department, dated

22.06.2000 for the irregularities committed by the petitioners herein. hence

prayed to dismiss the writ petition No.21912 of 2022.

9. Heard Smt. G. Kavitha; Sri C. Raghu, learned senior counsel

representing Smt. V. Sesha Kumari, learned counsels appearing for the

petitioners; learned Government Pleader for Services-I and learned

Government Pleader for Mines & Geology appearing for the respondents.

10. On hearing, Smt G. Kavitha, learned counsel appearing for the

petitioner in WP No.19438 of 2022, while reiterating the contents made in the

petition, submit that, the petitioner was permitted to retire from service on

30.06.2019 i.e., after the report was submitted by the 2

nd

respondent dated

21.3.2019 vide G.O.Rt. No.154 dated 28.6.2019. Basing on the said G.O., the

3

rd

respondent has issued proceedings dated 13.12.2019 which is illegal and

arbitrary. She further submits that the allegation that is made against the

petitioner is in relation to the execution of a lease document dated 23.2.2004

but the petitioner worked at that place only upto 22.4.2006. It means the

allegation relating to the event is 23.2.2004 and the work order that was

issued on the same day. She further submits that Rule 9(2)(b) of A.P.

Revised Pension Rules 1980 stipulates of limitation for withholding the

pension. The period of limitation is 4 years from the date of event. In this

case, the alleged event had occurred on the date of the execution of the

12

mining lease on 23.2.2004 and the work order on the same date. Even assign

the date of event is still the date of transfer i.e., on 22.04.2006, the period of

limitation shall expire by 22.2.2008 or at least by 21.4.2010. She further

submits that the period of limitation is relevant only in cases where no

disciplinary proceedings have been initiated prior to retirement. But, in this

case, no proceedings have been initiated by the disciplinary authority prior to

the retirement. Till now no charge memo has been issued. Therefore at no

stretch of imagination it can be construed that the departmental proceedings

have been initiated in the light of Rule 9(6)(a) of the Revised pension rules

which specifically contemplates that the date of service of charge memo would

be the reckoning date for institution of departmental proceedings. She further

submits that the 1ª respondent without application of mind and without

reference to the subsequent vigilance report dated 21.3.2019 where under the

earlier vigilance report dated 11.3.2016 was modified to the affect that the

decision to take necessary action against the officials has to be reviewed.

Such a review exercise has not been undertaken prior to issuance of the

impugned GO Rt.No.154, dated 28.6.2019 under which the petitioner was

allowed to retire from service and that the GO Rt.No.318, dated 26.11.2019

has been issued post retirement of the petitioner i.e., on 30.6.2019.

Therefore, learned counsel for the petitioner requests this Court to pass

appropriate orders.

11. On the other hand, Sri C.Raghu, learned Senior counsel appearing

for the petitioners in WP No.21912 of 2022 while reiterating the contents made

13

in the petition, argued that, pursuant to the order passed by this Hon'ble High

Court in WP No.44571/2018, a fresh vigilance report No.17(c.No.888/

V&E/NR/2014-1), dated 21.3.2019 was prepared by the 2nd respondent. A

perusal of the report shows that the recommendations at Para No.D1 of the

vigilance report dated 11.3.2016 had been set aside and in so far as the

recommendations contained at Para No.D2 is concerned it was directed to be

reviewed. He further submits that, a perusal of the initial vigilance report

dated 11.3.2016 shows that the 2nd respondent had given recommendations

at Para No.D1 & D2. At Pra No.D2 (iv) it was stated that “Relates to taking

necessary action against the officials of Mines and Geology who have

executed, allowed mining operations and issued transit permits in relation to

the disputed area of 387.72 acres.” Learned Senior counsel mianly

contended that 1

st

respondent has misconstrued the report dated 21.3.2019.

when the 2

nd

respondent had opined that the earlier recommendation of taking

necessary action against the officials of the department has to be reviewed in

the light of the second report, it means that the proposed action must be

dropped but the 1

st

respondent had taken a decision for more stringent action

of filing criminal cases against the petitioners. Further, neither the first report

dated 11.3.2016 nor the second report dated 21.3.2019 contain specific

allegations vis-vis each of the petitioners in relation to any criminal intention

and in fact the said report dated 21.3.2019 absolves the petitioners. He

submits that without appreciating the vigilance report dated 21.3.2019 in a

proper perspective the 1

st

respondent has issued the impugned Memo dated

14

13.7.2022, which is liable t be set aside for the reason that the same does not

contain any reasons as to how and why a criminal action should be taken

against the petitioners when neither of the reports dated 11.3.2016 and

21.3.2019 contemplates the same and that the impugned Memo does not

disclose that the 1

st

respondent has taken into consideration any of the

records by giving reasons. Therefore the impugned Memo dated 13.7.2022 is

illegal and liable to be set aside.

12. Per contra, learned Government Pleader appearing for the

respondents while denying the contents made by the petitioners, argued that,

in connection with irregularities committed by the petitioner that came to light

through GA V&E Report No.17, dated 11.3.2016 the Government has decided

to initiate criminal action against the petitioner herein as per para (5) of

G.O.Rt.No.1097, Finance & planning (FW-PEN1) Dept., dated 22.06.2000 and

instructed the DMG to file criminal cases against petitioner along with (5) other

retired officials, vide Govt. Memo.No.4149/Vig.A1/2016, dated 13.07.2022,

since departmental action could not be initiated against retired officials for the

irregularity committed as per Rule 9 (2) (b) (ii) of A.P. Revised Pension Rules,

1980. He submits that, aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed

W.P.No.21912 of 2022 before the Hon'ble High Court to suspend the Govt.

Memo.No.4149/VIG.A1/2016, dated 13.07.2022 and this Hon’ble Court has

passed interim order not to file criminal complaint against the petitioner,

pending further orders. Thereupon, the Govt., filed counter to vacate the

interim orders in IA No.1 of 2022 in W.P. No.21912 of 2022 and also dismiss

15

this W.P in the interest of justice. Therefore, learned Government Pleader,

on instructions, submits that, in the light of the interim orders of this Court

passed in I.A No.1 of 2022 in WP.No.21912 of 2022, no criminal action was

initiated against the petitioner. Hence, learned Government Pleader opposed

for allowing the writ petitions and prayed to dismiss the same

13. On a perusal of the G.O.Rt.No154, Industries and Commerce (Estt)

Department dated 28.6.2019, wherein it was mentioned that the petitioner

herein shall retire from service on attaining the age o f60 years and the officer

is permitted to retire from service on 30.06.2019 AN on attaining the age of 60

years without prejudice to the criminal cases/ disciplinary cases/ Enquires

pending against him and also subject to pending finalization of disciplinary

action in the Vigilance report No.17 (C..No.888/V&E/NR/2014 dated

11.3.2016) against the petitioner.

14. It is observed that, basing on the above G.O., the 3

rd

respondent

has issued proceedings vide letter dated 13.12.2019, which is impugned in

WP No.19438 of 2022 addressed to the Accountant General stating that the

Government has sanctioned provisional pension 75% vide G.O.Rt No.318

dated 26.11.2019 under Rule 52(1)(a)&(b) of A.P. Revised Pension Rules

1980.

15. It is pertinent to mention here Rule 9(2)(b) of the A.P. Revised

Pension Rules 1980, reads as under:

(2) (a)

16

(b) The Departmental proceedings, if not instituted while the Government servant was

in service, whether before his retirement or during his re-employment:

(i)...

(ii) shall not in respect of any event which took place more than four years such

institution; and

(iii)

(3) ...

(4) In the case of a Government servant who has retired on attaining the age of

superannuation or otherwise and against whom any department or judicial proceedings are

instituted or where departmental proceedings are continued under Sub-Rule(2), a provisional

pension as provided in Rule 52 shall be sanctioned.

(6) For the purpose of this Rule -

(a) Departmental proceedings shall be deemed to be instituted on the date on which

the statement of charges is issued to the government servant or pensioner or if the

government servant has been placed under suspension from an earlier date, on such date;

16. On a perusal of the above, it is observed that, the period of

limitation is 4 years from the date of event. In the present case, the alleged

event had occurred on the date of the execution of the mining lease on

23.2.2004 and the work order on the same date. It is also observed that, in

this case, no proceedings have been initiated by the disciplinary authority prior

to the retirement and that no charge memo has also been issued. Therefore

at no stretch of imagination it can be construed that the departmental

proceedings have been initiated in the light of Rule 9(6)(a) of the Revised

Pension Rules which specifically contemplates that the date of service of

charge memo would be the reckoning date for institution of departmental

proceedings.

17. As seen from the vigilance report No.17(C.No.888/V&E/NR/2014),

dated 11.3.2016, wherein it is observed at Para D-2(iv) that, “take necessary

action against the officials of Mines & Geology, who executed allowed mining

17

operations and issued transit permits for transportation of Beach Sand

Minerals like Iliminite, Garnet, Siliminite, Ruitle, Leucoxene and Zircon from

the disputed area of 387.72 Acres of un-surveyed coastal land of Vatsavalasa

village, Gara Mandal against G.O.Ms.No.31 Industries & Commerce (M-III)

Department, dated 6.2.2004.

18. In a case of State of Jharkhand and others versus Jitendra Kumar

Srivastava and another

1

, wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court held that:

“The fact remains that there is an imprimatur to the legal principle that the right to receive

pension is recognized as a right in “property”.

14. Article 300 A of the Constitution of India reads as under:

“300A Persons not to be deprived of property save by authority of law. - No person shall be

deprived of his property save by authority of law.” Once we proceed on that premise, the

answer to the question posed by us in the beginning of this judgment becomes too obvious. A

person cannot be deprived of this pension without the authority of law, which is the

Constitutional mandate enshrined in Article 300 A of the Constitution. It follows that attempt of

the appellant to take away a part of pension or gratuity or even leave encashment without any

statutory provision and under the umbrage of administrative instruction cannot be

countenanced.

It hardly needs to be emphasized that the executive instructions are not having statutory

character and, therefore, cannot be termed as “law” within the meaning of aforesaid Article

300A. On the basis of such a circular, which is not having force of law, the appellant cannot

withhold -even a part of pension or gratuity. As we noticed above, so far as statutory rules are

concerned, there is no provision for withholding pension or gratuity in the given situation. Had

there been any such provision in these rules, the position would have been different.

19. Having regard to the facts and circumstances, it is observed that,

the G.O.Rt.No.154, dated 28.6.2019 only refers to the earlier vigilance report,

dated 11.03.2016, but not the subsequent vigilance report, dated 21.03.2019

though it was available as on 28.6.2019. So, it appears that the entire

exercise has been done by the respondents without application of mind.

Viewed from any angle, the petitioner is entitled for full pension and the

1

(2013) 12 Supreme Court Cases 210

18

respondents do not have any right to withhold his pension in part of in hold.

Insofar as W.P.No.21912 of 2022 is concerned, the impugned Memo does not

contain any reasons as to how and why a criminal action should be taken

against the petitioners when neither of the reports dated 11.3.2016 and

21.3.2019 contemplates the same. Further, it is also observed that, there is no

allegation of commission of criminal offences as against the petitioners in the

vigilance reports and that they are retired from service and are senior citizens.

Therefore, this Court deems fit to allow the present writ petitions while

declaring the action of the respondents as illegal and arbitrary.

20. Accordingly, both the Writ Petitions are allowed. The impugned

G.O.Rt No.318 dated 26.11.2019 issued by the 1

st

respondent and

consequential Memo vide Memo Lr NO.18314/E1/1984, dated 13.12.20219

issued by the 2

nd

respondent in WP No.19438 of 2022; and the Memo

No.4149/VIG.A1/2016 dated 13.7.2022 issued by the 1

st

respondent in WP

No.21912 of 2022 are hereby set aside and further directed the respondents

to pass appropriate orders afresh within a period of three (03) months from the

date of receipt of this order. Failing which, the 1

st

respondent is directed to

pay full pension to the petitioners. There shall be no order as to costs.

As a sequel, all the pending miscellaneous applications shall stand

closed.

_________________________

DR. K. MANMADHA RAO, J.

Date : 28 -03-2025

Gvl

19

HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE K. MANMADHA RAO

WRIT PETITON Nos.19438/2022 & 21912/2022

Date :28.03.2025

Gvl