IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G.BHAVANI PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO : 22346 of 2008 Between: 1 The Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Principal Secretary, T, R & B Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad. 2 The Transport Commissioner, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad. ..... PETITIONER(S) AND 1 J. Shanthakumar, Retired Joint Transport Commissioner, R/o. H.No.2-475/4/B, Bapuji Nagar, K.R. Pally, Chittoor, Chittoor District. 2 The Accountant General, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad. .....RESPONDENT(S) Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Aﬃdavit ﬁled herein the High Court will be pleased to to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Certiorari calling for the records relating to the orders of the Hon'ble A.P. Administrative Tribunal passed in O.A.No.3914/2007 dated 17.01.2008 as being erroneous, illegal and unreasonable and quash th same and pass Counsel for the Petitioner:GP FOR SERVICES II Counsel for the Respondent No.: . The Court made the following : HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.BHAVANI PRASAD WRIT PETITION No.22346 of 2008 ORDER: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice Ghulam Mohammed) This writ petition is ﬁled seeking to quash the order dated 17-01-2008 passed in O.A.No.3914 of 2007 on the ﬁle of Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad, by virtue of which the petitioners herein have been directed to release pensionary benefits forthwith with interest at 8% per annum on pension from the date of entitlement 2. The details relevant and necessary for deciding the writ petition are that the respondent herein ﬁled the above O.A. seeking direction to the petitioners to release the pension, arrears of pension, commutation of pension, gratuity etc., together with interest at 12% per annum from the date of entitlement. The case of the respondent is that while he was working as Deputy Transport Commissioner, Chittoor, a complaint was lodged by P.Jagannadha Reddy pursuant to which, his remarks were called for and he had submitted explanation, but no action has been taken. The respondent was promoted as Joint Transport Commissioner, Chittoor, in the month of December, 2005 as no charges were pending against him and he continued to work in that capacity till his retirement from service on 31-03-2006. The Government had also issued G.O.Rt.No.331, dated 23-03-2006 permitting the respondent herein to retire from service. The petitioners contested the O.A., inter alia, contending that the Institution of Andhra Pradesh Lokayukta and Upa-Lokayukta, Hyderabad, vide its order dated 27-09-2006 directed the Transport Commissioner, Hyderabad, to pursue the matter with State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad, for disposal of A.P.No.17 of 2005 and the Principal Secretary to Government, Transport, Roads and Buildings Department, Hyderabad, to initiate disciplinary action against the then Deputy Transport Commissioner, Chittoor (respondent herein) for issuing permit contrary to the Rules. The petitioners also stated that the Government issued G.O.Rt.No.331 permitting the respondent to retire from service on attaining the age of superannuation subject to ﬁnalization of disciplinary/ACB proceedings. The Tribunal after considering the rival contentions, held that the petitioners have not initiated any disciplinary proceedings after retirement and there is no criminal case pending against him and as such, the respondent is entitled to all the retiral beneﬁts forthwith, with interest at 8% per annum from the date of entitlement and accordingly allowed the O.A. Aggrieved thereby, the oﬃcial respondents in O.A. preferred this writ petition. 3. We have heard learned Government Pleader appearing for the petitioner and learned counsel for the ﬁrst respondent. 4. Admittedly, the respondent was permitted by the Government vide its G.O.Rt.No.331, dated 23-03-2006, to retire from service on attaining the age of superannuation and at the time of retirement, he was holding the post of Joint Transport Commissioner. It appears that A.P. Lokayukta and Upalokayukta had directed the Principal Secretary to Government, Transport, Roads and Buildings Department, Hyderabad, to initiate disciplinary action against the respondent for issuing permits contrary to Rules, and this has prompted the Government to conduct enquiry against him. But, no charge-memo was issued to the petitioner nor was any enquiry pending against him, as on the date of retirement. When the charge-memo was not issued and no criminal case is pending against the respondent, it cannot be said that the disciplinary proceedings have been initiated against him. The Tribunal relying upon the decision of the Supreme Court in UNION OF INDIA Vs. SUDHA SALHAN [1] held that the petitioners have not initiated any disciplinary proceedings nor is there any criminal case pending against the respondent. In such situation, the petitioners are not justiﬁed in withholding the retiral beneﬁts of the respondent. It is seen from the record that the respondent had been granted provisional pension, but there is no lawful justiﬁcation for withholding other retiral beneﬁts, especially he was not awarded punishment either in the departmental or criminal proceedings. In the circumstances, we are of the considered view that the respondent is entitled to all the retiral beneﬁts, and as the delay had occurred due to the proceedings before the A.P.Lokayukta and Upa-Lokayukta, the respondent is not entitled to interest as awarded by the Tribunal. 5. Having regard to the facts and circumstances, we direct the petitioners herein to release the retiral beneﬁts to the ﬁrst respondent within a period of ﬁfteen days from today, without interest. If the retiral beneﬁts are not paid within 15 days, the ﬁrst respondent is entitled to interest as per G.O.Ms.No.268, Finance & Planning (FW-Pen-I) Department, dated 07-10-1986. 6. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. ___________________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J. _________________________ G.BHAVANI PRASAD, J. 16-10-2008 bsc [1] (1998) 3 SCC 394