V. PADMANABHAM versus GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH & ORS.

Citation: [2009] 11 S.C.R. 455 · Decided: 27-07-2009 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.B. SINHA · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

[2009] 11 S.C.R. 455 
V. PADMANABHAM 
v. 
GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH & ORS. 
(Civil Appeal No. 4717 of 2009) 
JULY 27, 2009 
[S.8. SINHA AND DEEPAK VERMA, JJ] 
• 
Andhra Pradesh Pension Code: r.9(2) - Departmental 
proceedings can be continued despite superannuation. 
Appellant was a Tehsidlar, Director of Civil Supplies: 
While he was working in that capacity, essential 
commodities meant for public distribution were supplied 
A 
B 
c 
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 
F 
the rules 20 anEI 21 of APCS (CC & A) Rules however 
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. 
B 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
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. 
H 
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 
V. PADMANABHAM v. GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA 
457 
-
PRADESH & ORS. 
t 
88, referred to. 
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 
-
dismissed by an order dated 21.10.1994. In the orders 
B 
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 c 
specifically been noticed that various notices have been 
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 
D 
petition before the High Court which was disposed of by 
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 o

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