THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH W.P.NOS.19979 OF 2003 AND 12245 OF 2004 COMMON ORDER Since the petitioner and the respondents are one and the same and the matters are connected, they are being disposed of by this common order. 2. The petitioner in both the writ petitions is one Dr.Y.Srihari. W.P.No.19979 of 2003 is filed aggrieved by the action of the respondents in not paying him pension and other retrial benefits on the ground that disciplinary proceedings are pending against him in Rc.No.6464/Admn.III-1/1995 dated 29.6.2004 issued by the 2nd respondent – The Commissioner and Director of Collegiate Education, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad and the consequential proceedings in Rc.No.2D/98 dated 5.7.2004 issued by the 3rd respondent – V.R.S and Y.R.N. College, represented by its Correspondent. W.P.No.12245 of 2004 is filed challenging the above enquiry proceedings dated 29.6.2004 issued by the 2nd respondent and the proceedings dated 5.7.2004 issued by the 3rd respondent – college. 3. The case of the petitioner as stated in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petitions is that he is appointed as Demonstrator in Geology in the year 1963 in the 3rd respondent – college and subsequently, he was promoted as lecturer and thereafter as Principal of the college. At the verge of his retirement, the 3rd respondent issued show cause notice dated 26.7.200 alleging the following irregularities: 1. Dr.Y.Srihari Principal of the college had admitted, after issuing notice by the Secretary and Correspondent as per the Resolution of the Governing Body, that he had withdrawn an amount of Rs.50,126/- from the account no.334 and deposited the same in his personal name. He did not care to remit the same on 28.09.1998 (i.e.,) the date of his retirement as per Procs.Rc.No.6464/PC-l- 4/95-2 dated 14.9.1998 of the Commissioner of Collegiate Education, A.P., Hyderabad. He kept the amount with him for more than 25 months. He has brazenly violated the procedural safeguards with an ulterior motive. He had thus, temporarily misappropriated the funds. Moreover, he leveled unfounded allegations against the Governing Body, which is inexcusable. 2. He has been suffering from paralytic stroke impairing his power of speech and gait which made him unable to take up the prescribed classes as Principal, according to the Rules. 4. Challenging the show cause notice, the petitioner filed civil suit and eventually, he was placed under suspension by the 3rd respondent – College, by proceedings dated 28.10.2000. Aggrieved by the order of suspension, the petitioner preferred appeal before the Director of Collegiate Education and by proceedings dated 21.11.2000, the 2nd respondent directed the Regional Joint Director of Higher Education, Guntur to conduct enquiry on the charges leveled against the petitioner by the 3rd respondent – college. The Regional Joint Director of Higher Education, Guntur held enquiry and by proceedings dated 8.12.2000 held that the irregularities against the petitioner are not proved and directed the reinstatement of petitioner into service. Aggrieved by the same, the 3rd respondent- College, filed revision before the 1st respondent. The case of the petitioner is that no notice in the said revision has been served on him. As the pensionery benefits were withheld by the 3rd respondent – college, the petitioner made a representations dated 9.1.2002 and 13.2.2002 to the Hon’ble Minister for Higher Education and the 1st respondent – Principal Secretary to Government. The 1st respondent issued G.O.Rt.No.375 Education dated 5.6.2002 directing the Director of Collegiate Education and the management of the College to pay him the salary for the period, he was out of service and to pay the pension. The grievance of the petitioner is that though the salary is paid, the pension has been withheld on the ground that revision is pending before the Government. The further grievance of the petitioner is that the 3rd respondent – College issued two letters dated 19.4.2003 and 30.4.2003 asking him to appear before an enquiry committee on certain allegations on which the Regional Joint Director of Higher Education, Guntur has already conducted an inquiry and found to be unproved. Therefore, the action of the 3rd respondent in seeking to conduct enquiry on the very same charges, which were found to be not proved by the Regional Joint Director, is nothing but harassing him after his retirement. Therefore, challenging the withholding of pensionary benefits, he filed W.P.No.19979 of 2003. 5. To the above letters issued by the 3rd respondent – college dated 19.4.2003 and 30.04.2003 asking him to appear before the inquiry committee, he filed detailed representation dated 9.5.2003 to the Director of Collegiate Education. Thereafter, the 2nd respondent issued proceedings dated 29.6.2004 requesting the 3rd respondent to finalize the enquiry proceedgns and pursuant to the same, the 3rd respondent – college, issued proceedings dated 5.7.2004 asking him to appear before the enquiry committee. 6. The case of the petitioner is that he is suffering from diabetes, hypertension and right hemiaresis and at this stage conducting enquiry for the second time, on the same charges, which were held not proved by the Regional Joint Director, is unjust and arbitrary and also filing of revision against the orders of the Regional Joint Director, is illegal and contrary to the principles of natural justice. 7. The respondents filed counter affidavits and the tenor of which is that as the enquiry proceedings are pending and as the petitioner did not submit the pension papers, he is not paid pension. With these averments, the writ petitions were sought to be dismissed. 8. From the above material it could be seen that the Regional Joint Director by his proceedings dated 12.12.2000 found that the irregularities leveled against the petitioner were not proved and challenging the same, the 3rd respondent filed revision and the same is pending. The grievance of the petitioner is that for the very same allegations, the 2nd respondent issued proceedings dated 29.6.2004 for conducting enquiry and consequently, the 3rd respondent – college issued proceedings dated 5.7.2004 directing the petitioner to appear before the enquiry committee. The specific grievance of the petitioner is that for the very same charges which were held to be not proved by the Regional Joint Director, the second enquiry is being conducted. There is no specific denial to this averment. Therefore, I am of the considered view that conducting enquiry for the second time for the very same charges, which were not proved in the earlier enquiry and more particularly when a revision is pending before the Government; is not maintainable and is in violation of the principles of natural justice and hence the proceedings of the 2nd respondent – Commissioner and Director of Collegiate Education, Andhra Pradesh and the consequent proceedings of the 3rd respondent in Rc.No.2D/98 dated 5.7.2004 cannot be sustained and they are liable to be set aside and accordingly set aside. 9. It is to be noticed that the petitioner retired from service on 31.12.2000 and the charges leveled against him were held to be not proved by the Regional Joint Director by his proceedings dated 8.11.2000. The revision was filed before the Government in the year 2000 and there is no material on record with regard to the stage of revision. 10. It is reported that the petitioner is now aged about seventy years and suffering from sever ailments and at this stage denying the pension, in the view of the above facts and circumstances, would be unjust and contrary to the principles of natural justice. 11. Further, this court by a detailed interim order dated 26.4.2006 directing the respondents to process the provisional pension proposals of the petitioner and forward the same to the Accountant General, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of that order. 12. In view of the above facts and circumstances, I am of the view that the respondents be directed to process the pension papers of the petitioner and pay the pension, gratutity and other retrial benefits within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 13. Accordingly both the writ petitions are disposed of. No costs. AVS --------------------- 09—09—2010