IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD Friday, October 21, 2011 Present: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N. RAVI SHANKAR W.P.No. 4242 of 2000 Between: B. Chiranjeevi Rao ..Petitioner and The Govt. of AP and another …Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N. RAVI SHANKAR W.P.No. 4242 of 2000 O r d e r: One – B. Chiranjeevi Rao, a retired Assistant Estate Officer of A.P. Housing Board filed this writ petition questioning the G.O.Ms. 87, Housing (HB-I) Department dated: 28—6—1999 by which the government imposed a punishment of cut or reduction of 25% in his pension, on the ground that it is illegal. Subsequently, as Chiranjeevi Rao died, his wife Smt. B. Prasunamba and their son – B. Satya Srinivas were brought on record as petitioner Nos.2 and 3. It is seen that as the wife is also entitled to pension, which is a monetary benefit to which she is entitled on the death of her deceased husband, the cause of action survives for her though not to her son. 2. The point arises in the following circumstances. The deceased- petitioner- Chiranjeevi Rao retired from service on 31-12- 1998. With regard to certain alleged irregularities said to have been committed by him before retirement along with some other officers of the Housing Board a disciplinary enquiry was commenced against him on four charges. The charges relate to certain encroachments upon the lands of the A.P. Housing Board. The following are four charges that were framed against him. i) He has not verified the computerized list of stray pieces of land. ii) He did not issued notices to the encroachers of the land for the vacating the land as per the instructions contained in Circular Memo.No.9423/Supdt./J7/90 dated:5-1-1994. iii) He recommended for sale of plots to the encroachers in contravention of the instructions contained in Circular No.732/J3/94 dated:10-5-1994 which lays down that sale proposals should not be put up if the encroached area is part of APHB open lands and action should be initiated for eviction. iv) According to G.O.Ms.No.20, Housing dated:11-6-1984, the pieces less than 100 square yards are to be sold to the adjacent house-owners and encroachments have to be brought to the notice of the MCH before sale etc. But did not take action in the matter in accordance with the provisions of the G.O. 3. The Enquiry Officer by his report dated:4-6-1998 exonerated the deceased-petitioner of charge Nos. 2 to 4, but found him guilty of only charge No.1. It must be stated here that the above enquiry was a joint enquiry held not only against the deceased-petitioner, but also some other officers of A.P. Housing Board. 4. After submission of the Enquiry Report to the Government, the latter by the impugned Government order accepted the said report and imposed punishment of 25% cut in the pension of the deceased-petitioner. It is challenging this order; the deceased- petitioner initially filed the writ petition. 5. The first respondent – the Government of Andhra Pradesh and the second respondent ie., the Vice-Chairman, A.P. Housing Board filed separate counter affidavits resisting the writ petition. 6. So far as Charge No.1 is concerned which is found to have been proved, it may be noted that it pertains to an irregularity which shows that the deceased-petitioner did not verify the computerized list of stray pieces of the land belonging to Housing Board. The petitioner gave his explanation and the Enquiry Officer after considering the matter in detail found the explanation unsatisfactory and basing on the evidence he gathered, he came to the conclusion that charge No.1 framed against the petitioner is proved. So far as that aspect is concerned, as pointed by Sri A.K.Jayaprakash Rao, learned standing counsel appearing for the A.P. Housing Board, there is no compelling reason to disagree with the conclusion of the Enquiry Officer. 7. However, so far as the punishment imposed by the Government is concerned, it may be noted that it has imposed 25% cut in the pension of the deceased-petitioner. Normally, this court will not interfere in the matter of punishment also. The charge, however, relates to not verifying the computerized list of stray pieces of land of the A.P. Housing Board. The deceased-petitioner was on the verge of his service when the irregularity was said to have been committed. He is now dead and his wife, who is the second petitioner and who has now come on record was sixty years in 2007 when the first petitioner died. She must be 64 years now. It is brought to my notice that as per Rules she will be entitled to half of the pension, even less than that, which was drawn by the first petitioner. 8. In the above circumstances, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the opinion that the punishment imposed on the deceased first petitioner can be said to be disproportionate to the charge and it should be modified. 9. Accordingly instead of 25% cut, there shall be only 10% cut in the pension of the deceased petitioner and the order impugned is accordingly modified. The second petitioner, wife of the first petitioner can workout her remedies to recover the dues from the Government in accordance with this order. The writ petition is accordingly partly allowed in the above terms. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________________ N. RAVI SHANKAR, J. October 21, 2011. *BVS