P. KRISHNA MURTHY versus THE COMMNR. OF SERICULTURE ANDHRA PRADESH, & ANR.

Citation: [2014] 7 S.C.R. 907 · Decided: 01-07-2014 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: J.S. KHEHAR · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

[2014] 7 S.C.R. 907 
P. KRISHNA MURTHY 
v. 
THE COMMNR. OF SERICULTURE ANDHRA PRADESH, 
& ANR. 
(Civil Appeal Nos. 5897-5898 of 2014) 
JULY 01, 2014 
[JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR AND M.Y. EQBAL, JJ.] 
Service Law - Voluntary Retirement - Non-acceptance 
A 
B 
of withdrawal of voluntary retirement -
Challenged to -
C 
Disciplinary proceeding pending against employee on 
charges of gross negligence in discharge of duties -
Employee seeking permission to retire - Acceptance of 
permission - However, subsequent request by employee to 
permit him to continue in service, rejected - Meanwhile, 
D 
conclusion of disciplinary proceeding by imposing 
punishment of 25% cut in pension amount of the employee 
- In appeal, said order set aside by the Commissioner- Grant 
of pensionary benefits to employee - After lapse of two years, 
employee seeking reinstatement in service -
Tribunal E 
directing the employee to continue in service till h'e._attains 
superannuation - Writ Petition thereagainst, allowed by High 
Court - Held: Justified - High Court rightly concluded that the 
employee filed an appeal before the State Government 
against the order of cut in pension as a retired employee and F 
he himself stated that he had submitted the pension 
proposals for fixation of pension - Thus, the employee cannot 
be allowed to proceed further, that too after expiry of two years 
seeking reinstatement in service taking the benefit of the order 
passed by the State Government - AP. Revised Pension G 
Rules, 1980. 
Disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the 
appellant-employee on the charge of gross negligence in 
discharge of duties. During pendency, the appellant filed 
907 
H 
908 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2014] 7 S.C.R. 
A an application seeking permission to retire from service 
w.e.f. 1.5.2004. By order dated 4.3.2004, the appellant was 
permitted to retire w.e.f. 1.5.2004. Before expiry of the said 
date, appellant submitted another application requesting 
the authorities to permit him to continue in service and 
B to revoke the order dated 4.3.2004. The authority rejected 
the application on 28.4.2004. Thereafter, disciplinary 
proceeding concluded and the Commissioner passed an 
order imposing punishment of 25% cut in pension 
amount of the appellant on the ground of gross 
c negligence in discharging duties.,.The appellant 
challenged the said order. The State Government set 
aside the order passed by the Commissioner. The 
appellant after two years filed another application seeking 
issuance of order for reinstatement. The State 
0 
Government rejected the application. However, in appeal, 
the tribunal directed the respondent to allow the appellant 
to continue in service till he attained the age of 
superannuation. Aggrieved, the respondents filed a writ 
petition. The Division Bench of the High Court set aside 
E the order passed by the tribunal. Hence, the instant 
appeals. 
Dismissing the appeals, the Court 
HELD: 1.1. The appeal against the order of 25% cut 
in pension, the State Government considered it 
F sympathetically and allowed the appeal and set aside the 
order of imposing penalty and directed to drop the 
proceedings against the appellant, who is a retired officer. 
After his request for revocation of withdrawal of voluntary 
retirement was finally rejected, the appellant instead of 
G challenging the said order filed several representations 
for release of the pensionary benefits. The said 
representations were considered and the eligible 
pensionary benefits were drawn and paid to the appellant 
in 2004 and 2005. Taking advantage of the leniency 
H shown by the Government in the order passed in appeal 
P. KRISHNA MURTHY v. THE COMMNR. OF 
909 
SERICULTURE A.P. 
on 3.4.2004, the appellant took a chance to move an 
A 
application after two years i.e. on 27.4.2006 requesting 
the authorities for reinstatement in service. [Para 14] [917-
E-G] 
1.2. The High Court in the impugned order rightly 
8 
concluded that the appellant preferred an appeal before 
the State Government against the impugned order of cut 
in pension as a retired employee and he himself stated 
that he has submitted the pension proposals for fixation 
of pension. Furthermore, having regard to the fact that the 
C 
appellant did not assail the order rejecting his application 
for revocation of pension at any time rather he proceeded 
and assailed only the order of 25% cut in pension. Hence, 
the appellant cannot be allowed to proceed further, that 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.