YELESWARAPU VENKATA SUNDARARAMA SASTRY AND ANOTHER Vs. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
Yeleswarapu Venkata Sundararama Sastry And Another
The State Of Andhra Pradesh
Click here to view full judgement.
KRISHNA RAO, J. -
(1.) This appeal is filed by the legal representatives of the plaintiff who died pending these proceedings, against a judgement of our learned brother Parthasarathi, J. in Second Appeal No. 95 of 1966.
(2.) The plaintiff filed the suit O.S. No. 22 of 1959 against the State of Andhra Pradesh in the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Narsapur for recovery of a sum of Rs. 5,997/- towards arrears of salary from 5-1-1956 upto 2-8-1958 and for pension there after till 1-2-1959. On 17-5-1954 he was temporarily promoted from the post of Junior Engineer to that of the Assistant Engineer in the Department of Public Works, Andhra Pradesh. On 5-1-1956 he was suspended pending enquiry into certain charges framed against him under the relevant Rules for disciplinary proceedings. He was due to retire on 15-1-1956 on the ground of superannuation. By virtue of the same order of suspension dated 5-1-1956 it was stated that he shall not be permitted to retire from service on 15-1-1956 the date on which he attains the age of superannuation till the conclusion of the departmental proceedings against him. The order was evidently passed in view of the provisions of Fundamental Rule 56(c). Meanwhile by an order dated 8-10-1957 while the plaintiff was under suspension he was reverted from the post of Assistant Engineer to that of Junior Engineer with effect from 5-1-1956 the date of his suspension, on the ground that the Public Service Commission did not consider him to be fit for appointment. The enquiry into the charges was conducted by the Tribunal for Disciplinary Proceedings, Government of Andhra Pradesh. Out of 8 charges framed against him, the Tribunal found that charges 2 to 8 have not been proved at all. But with regard to charge No. 1 it was found that he acted under a bona fide mistake and that there was no evidence of any corrupt motive or abuse of official position. On 20-2-1958 G.O. Ms. No. 479 was issued directing that the plaintiff should refund an excess amount of Rs. 9/- per month collected by him under a mistaken impression. It was further stated that he was not found guilty of the other charges. He was accordingly permitted to retire with effect from 15-1-1956 the date on which he attained the age of superannuation. But shortly thereafter by a memorandum dated 4-2-1959 the Government issued a modification permitting him to retire from 20-2-1958 instead of from 15-1-1956 on the ground that his order of suspension was vacated on 20-5-1958. Subsequently by another proceeding dated 5-2-1959 the Government issued the following order which gave rise to the present suit:
"As his name was not approved for appointment as Assistant Engineer by the Andhra Pradesh Public Service Commission, his temporary appointment as Assistant Engineer was terminated and he was ordered to have been reverted as Junior Engineer with effect from 5-1-1956 (vide order of reversion dated 8-10-1957). Although he attained the age of superannuation on 15-1-1956, he was continued under suspension till the issue of final orders on 20-2-1958 in G.O. cited on the charges against him in D.E. No. 15 of 1956. In the said Memorandum the Government vacated the orders of suspension with effect from 20-2-1958. The Government direct under F.R. No. 56 (c) that during the period from 15-1-1956 to 20-2-1958, Sri Y. Joginadhaswami be allowed pay and allowances at the rate of two thirds of the pay and allowance as Junior Engineer, P.W.D. which would have been admissible to him as Junior Engineer had he not been suspended."
(3.) Aggrieved by this order the plaintiff filed the suit for recovery of full salary upto 2-8-1958 when he was served with the order dated 20-2-58 from which he was permitted to retire. The plaintiff was unsuccessful in the Court below and before our learned brother. In view of the order of the Government dated 5-2-1959 passed under Fundamental Rule No. 56(c) allowing only ? .. "rds of the pay, it was held by our learned brother that by implication the Government did treat him as having been fully exonerated of all the charges. So far as the period of the salary was concerned, the learned Judge held that he is entitled to salary only upto 20-2-1958 and thereafter.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.