- (1.)THE petitioner, who is erstwhile employee of the State of Andhra Pradesh, has filed this contempt petition alleging therein that respondent/contemnor has not complied with the directions contained in the orders dated 6.5.2014 passed by this Court in Special Leave Petition (Civil) No(s). 34970 -34791 of 2013. The controversy pertains to grant of pension to the petitioner and treatment which has to be given to him for the period from 7.5.2001 to 30.11.2003 when the petitioner was facing suspension. It may be mentioned at this stage itself that the Government has passed orders dated 10.7.2014 and 27.9.2014. Whether these orders fully comply with the directions of this Court or not is the question.
(2.)BEFORE we come to the fulcrum of the dispute in that behalf, it would be appropriate to traverse the minimal facts that are required to understand the controversy involved.
(3.)THE petitioner, while working as Chief Executive Officer, Zila Praja Parishad, Vizianagaram District was trapped on 5.5.2001 and placed under suspension vide orders of the even date. Decision was taken to prosecute him for the offence punishable under Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Prosecution was lodged and the petitioner was tried for the offences under the said Act. Special Judge, Visakhapatnam, after the trial, passed the judgment dated 21.01.2004 convicting and sentencing the petitioner. By that time, the petitioner had already attained the age of superannuation, which was 30th November, 2003. In these circumstances, consequent on the aforesaid conviction, the competent authority passed the orders of withholding the entire pension and full gratuity on permanent basis. Petitioner challenged the conviction order by approaching the High Court of Andhra Pradesh. The appeal filed by him was decided in his favour as the High Court vide its judgment dated 4.3.2011 set aside the conviction and sentence recorded by the trial Court. After the acquittal of the petitioner, the Government passed G.O. dated 22.9.2012 dropping further action and also withdrew the orders dated 31.12.2005 vide which pension and the gratuity of the petitioner were withheld. By same order, it was decided to regularise the period of suspension from 7.5.2001 to 30.11.2003 as "Not on Duty" under FR 54(A)(3) and Proviso to FR 54(B)(7). It is pertinent to point out that this was done on the ground that there were other some disciplinary proceedings pending against the petitioner at that time. The petitioner filed a complaint before the Lokayukta, Hyderabad against the treatment of suspension period from 7.5.2001 to 30.11.2003 as "not on duty". Lokayukta passed the orders dated 6.12.2012 directing to treat the suspension period as on duty and calculate his terminal benefits and sanction of the payment of the amount. The State Government challenged the orders of the Lokayukta before the High Court and High Court set aside the orders of the Lokayukta vide its judgment dated 16.8.2013 on the ground that Lokayukta had no jurisdiction to deal with such a matter.
It would be relevant to mention at this stage that insofar as second disciplinary proceedings are concerned, which were pending against the petitioner at that time, the petitioner had challenged those proceedings before the A.P. Administrative Tribunal in O.A. No. 3123 of 2013. That O.A. of the petitioner was allowed as the Tribunal quashed the disciplinary proceedings on the ground of inordinate delay by its judgment dated 22.1.2014. This order attained finality as no challenge was laid thereto by the Govt.