Telangana High Court on Friday set aside the punishment of permanent withholding of 30% pension of a septuagenarian retired State government employee.
A bench of Chief Justice Ujjal Bhuyan and Justice Surepalli Nanda allowed the writ petition filed by retired Sub-Treasury Officer of Karimnagar district S.M.P.M. Hashmi, quashing the order of Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal declining to revoke the punishment. The petitioner worked as Karimnagar STO from March, 1997 till his retirement on January 31, 2001.
Three years after his superannuation, the department officials accused him of paying amounts ranging from ₹17,000 to ₹75,000 to two colleagues without sanctioning orders from the department head. These payments were considered by the authorities fraudulent withdrawals.
In 2006, the government issued an order awarding punishment of withholding 30% of his pension amount permanently. Mr. Hasmhi moved the APAT which dismissed his plea in 2008. He again approached the government and submitted representations to consider his case stating that some other employees who faced similar charge were awarded minor punishments like withholding of 2% of pension.
He cited the specific case of another retired employee S. Kommaiah who too was punished with holding back of 30% of pension. However, Kommaiah moved the HC and got the punishment order quashed in 2017. Following this order, his punishment was converted into withholding of 2% pension for one year.
Mr. Hashmi in his writ petition filed this year contended that he too deserved a similar benefit like Kommaiah. The government responded stating that the petitioner did not prefer any review petition as provided under the rules. Instead, he moved the APAT only to get his original application dismissed, the government told the court.
The bench noted that the government failed to justify why the relief granted to Mr. Kommaiah was not extended to Mr. Hashmi. The judgment said the records indicated that different punishments were awarded to persons facing same charges.
This “constitutes clear discrimination” and the treatment meted out to the petitioner “suffers from the vice of arbitrariness”, the verdict said.
