THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.PRAKASH RAO AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN W.P. NO. 14338 OF 2006 Dated : August 7, 2006 Between: The Director, Women Development & Child Welfare Department, Ameerpet, Hyderabad and three others Petitioners AND Smt. G.Tejamma. Respondent ORDER: (Per The Hon’ble Sri Justice Ramesh Ranganathan) Aggrieved by the order of the A.P. Administrative Tribunal, in OA No. 4136 of 2003 dated 10.8.2005, the respondents therein have filed this writ petition. The petitioner No.1 herein issued proceedings dated 29.10.1997 placing the respondent herein under suspension on the allegation of misappropriation of Government funds to the tune of Rs.5,83,360/-. A charge memo was issued on 12.1.1998. The explanation of the respondent was received by letter dated 4.2.1998, and as it was found not satisfactory, an Enquiry Officer was appointed to conduct enquiry into the charges. During the pendency of the said proceedings, the first respondent attained superannuation and was allowed to retire from service on 30.6.1999. Through Memorandum of charges dated 12.1.1998, in all, fifteen charges were framed, which relate mainly to financial irregularities alleged to have been committed by the respondent while working as a Project Officer, Child Development, at Devarakonda. Vide proceedings dated 19.7.2000, the earlier Charge Memo dated 12.1.1998 was cancelled and a revised Charge sheet was issued. Aggrieved thereby, the respondent filed O.A. No. 4136 of 2003 and the Tribunal, by order dated 10.8.2005, held that under Rule 9 of the A.P. Revised Pension Rules, 1980, any further disciplinary action against the petitioner has to be taken in terms thereof and the subsequent charge memo dated 19.7.2000, could not have been issued consequent upon cancellation of the earlier charge memo, as it suffers from lack of jurisdiction on the part of the first respondent i.e. the first petitioner herein and is, therefore, liable to be set aside. The Tribunal also held that since the suspension order, issued by the District Collector, had to be ratified later by the competent authority and it was clear that the Authority who did not have jurisdiction had passed the order, the period of suspension undergone by the respondent herein from 29.10.1997 to 22.10.1998, had to be treated necessarily as on duty and all emoluments had to be regulated accordingly. The Tribunal further held that since the charge Memo dated 19.7.2000 was set aside, the petitioners herein were not entitled to withhold the pension of the respondent and the pension, as already fixed, should be continued to be disbursed to the respondent following the normal procedure. The Tribunal also held that the second petitioner herein was at liberty to consider the facts and circumstances of the case and take a view in respect of the need for invoking the provisions of Rule 9 of the A.P. Revised Pension Rules with regard to the disciplinary action, but, such decision shall be taken within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt a copy of the order in the O.A., failing which no further action can be taken by the respondent against the respondent – applicant herein. Learned Government Pleader for Services II urges, before us, that even if the subsequent charge memo dated 19.7.2000 is held to be without jurisdiction, the very action of the first petitioner herein in canceling the earlier charge sheet dated 12.1.1998, would necessarily also be without jurisdiction, in which case, the charge sheet dated 12.1.1998 would continue to remain in force. Learned Government Pleader would submit that what all was sought to be done by the proceedings dated 19.7.2000 was merely to add two new charges by deleting two earlier charges and that thirteen out of the fifteen charges continue to remain in force. Learned Government Pleader further submits that, in any view of the matter, even if the subsequent charge Memo dated 19.7.2000 is said to be without jurisdiction, the earlier charge Memo dated 12.1.1998 continues to remain in force and, to that extent, the petitioners herein cannot be precluded from proceeding with the disciplinary enquiry. According to the learned Government Pleader eight charges of misappropriation are involved and since a common enquiry is being held, it requires a minimum of six months for the petitioners herein to complete the enquiry in accordance with the earlier charge sheet dated 12.1.1998. Mr. M.Bala Gangadharaiah, learned counsel for the respondent – applicant submits that since the earlier Charge Memo dated 12.1.1998 merges with the subsequent Charge Memo dated 19.7.2000, and as the subsequent Charge Memo dated 19.7.2000 has been held to be without jurisdiction, no further action can be taken by the petitioners against the respondent - applicant. Learned counsel submits that during the pendency of disciplinary proceedings, the respondent herein was paid pension. We find considerable force in the submission of the learned Government Pleader that when once the subsequent Charge Memo dated 19.7.2000 is held to be without jurisdiction, the earlier charge Memo dated 12.1.1998 revives and remains in force, in which event, the petitioners herein would be entitled to conduct enquiry pursuant to the charge Memo dated 12.1.1998. Recording the submission of the learned Government Pleader that the enquiry would be completed within six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, we consider it appropriate to set aside the order of the Tribunal leaving it open to the petitioners herein to conduct an enquiry pursuant to the Charge Memo dated 12.1.1998 and complete the same within six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Since the respondent herein was paid pension earlier, and since no provision of law which entitles the petitioners to withhold pension during pendency of disciplinary proceedings is brought to our notice, we deem it appropriate to also direct the petitioners herein to continue to pay pension to the respondent – applicant till completion of the disciplinary proceedings, including arrears of pension, due and payable to him. The writ petition is accordingly allowed. No order as to costs. __________________ B.PRAKASH RAO, J. ___________________________ RAMESH RANGANATHAN, J. August 7, 2006 MAS.