IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU WRIT PETITION NO : 21934 of 2008 Between: S.Moi Dullaiah S/o.S.Peetar Saheb R/o.Visakhapatnam ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Chairman and Managing Director, AP Eastern Power Distribution Company Ltd., Gurudwara Junction,Visakhapatnam 2 The Senior Accounts Officer, Operation circle, APEPDCL Visakhapatnam 3 The Divisional Electrical Engineer, Operation Zone-II APEPDCL, Kancherlapalem, Visakhapatnam .....RESPONDENTS 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 issue a writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus under Article 226 of the Constitution of India declaring the action of the 3rd respondent in issuing proceedings in Memo No.DEE/O/Z.II/VSP/Ad/A2/D.No.5308/2008 dated 30.8.2008 by canceling the earlier orders passed vide Memo No.DEE/O/Z.II/VSP/Ad/A2/D.No.4994/2008 dated 16.8.2008 for restoration of petitioner pay from minimum time scale pay into regular pay without any valid reason as illegal, arbitrary, unjust and violation of A.P.S.E.B. Regulations set aside the same and consequently direct the respondents to restore the original pay scale of the petitioner from 7.3.2008. Counsel for the Petitioner:SMT.A.PADMA Counsel for the Respondents: P.R.BALARAMI REDDY(SC FOR AP TRANSCO) The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU W.P. No. 21934 of 2008 O R D E R: This writ petition is ﬁled seeking a Mandamus declaring the action of the 3rd respondent in issuing Proceedings Memo No.DEE/O/Z.II/VSP/Ad/A2/D.No. 5308/08 dated 30.8.2008 by canceling the earlier orders passed vide Memo No. DEE/O/Z.II/VSP/Ad/A2/D.No. 4994/08 dated 16.8.2008 for restoration of petitioner’s pay from minimum timescale into the regular pay without any valid reasons, as arbitrary and illegal. It appears, the petitioner retired as Assistant Lineman, on 30.8.2008. While he was in service, he was proceeded with departmentally and a punishment of reduction of his pay-scale to the minimum, for a period of three years, was imposed on 7.3.2005. The three years’ time elapsed on 6.3.2008 and his salary was restored as per his eligibility and the petitioner, as stated above, on attaining the age of superannuation, retired from service on 30.8.2008. On the very same day the impugned proceedings were passed, which read as under: “It is informed that the original pay of Rs.19875/- restoration orders issued vide reference 1st cited are hereby cancelled as per the instructions. Sri Syed Mohibullah, Asst. Lineman will receive minimum pay of Asst. Lineman time scale from 1.8.2008 onwards as was done in previous months. Further the Asst. Lineman is hereby informed that in the case of Government servant who has retired on attaining age of superannuation or otherwise and against whom the Department or judicial proceedings are instituted or where departmental proceedings are continued under rule No.9, a “Provisional” pension as provided in rule 52 of A.P. Revised Pension Rules, 1980 shall be sanctioned on request of the party. Hence, Sri Syed Mohibullah, Asst.Lineman is directed to submit a representation requesting for minimum pension from 1.9.08 onwards, as the criminal case against the Asst. Lineman is yet to be ﬁnalized. The representation will be submitted to Superintending Engineer/Operation/Visakhapatnam soon on receipt”. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition is filed. Learned counsel for the petitioner strenuously contended that in view of the misconduct alleged against the petitioner, he was proceeded with departmentally and after conducting a detailed enquiry, punishment of reduction of pay to the minimum time scale for a period of three years was imposed and on its expiry, the pay of the petitioner was restored on 16.8.2008 and, thereafter, he retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation on 30.8.2008. While so, by the impugned order, the orders passed on 16.8.2008 were cancelled and he was asked to submit a representation requesting for minimum pension from 1.9.2008 onwards, on the ground that the criminal case against the petitioner is yet to be ﬁnalized. This order, passed by the respondents, is without any jurisdiction. Once the departmental proceedings are concluded, even assuming that the criminal case arose during the course of employment, the respondents have no authority for taking further action even if the petitioner is convicted by a competent criminal Court. What the Department is supposed to do has already been concluded and, therefore, the impugned orders could not have been passed by the respondents. Thus, it is contended, the petitioner is entitled for full pension, as per law. Whereas, learned counsel for the respondents Sri P.R. Bala Rami Reddy strenuously contended that the criminal case which is pending before the competent criminal Court and the departmental proceedings which were concluded in imposing punishment of reduction of pay to the minimum time scale arise out of the same transaction; therefore, though the departmental proceedings are concluded and the punishment was imposed and the salary was restored after lapse of three years, since the criminal case is pending, the petitioner is not entitled for pension; as such, he was asked to submit representation for grant of minimum pension. I have given my earnest consideration to the respective submissions made by the learned counsel on either side and perused the impugned order and other material made available on record. Learned counsel for the respondents could not place any source of authority to say that after conclusion of departmental proceedings and the punishment had been undergone by the petitioner and his retirement from service, still the respondents have an authority to proceed against the petitioner after conclusion of the criminal proceedings. In fact, the conclusion of the criminal proceedings is nothing to do with the departmental proceedings. The departmental proceedings, in fact, concluded prior to the criminal proceedings. Therefore, the consequences of the criminal proceedings have no bearing on the service conditions of the petitioner. Under those circumstances, I am of the opinion, the order impugned is without any authority and, therefore, the same is liable to be set aside. Accordingly the impugned order is set aside and the respondents are directed to release all the retrial beneﬁts, including the full pension of the petitioner, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. No order as to costs. C.V. RAMULU, J. Date: 21-10-2008. Note: Dispatch copies of the order, within a week. (BO) MVB.