Punishment Only Based on Clinching Evidence: HC

Hyderabad: A two-judge bench of the Telangana High Court directed the state government to regulate the pension benefits of a retired junior judge and pay his legal representatives accordingly. A bench comprising Justice Sam Koshy and Justice S. Chalapathi Rao responded positively to a writ plea initially filed by B. Srihari, questioning the Supreme Court’s recommendations to the government on administrative aspects. “In ministry investigations, the truth of the accusations must be proven with clear and definitive evidence.” The panel decided. During his tenure as Principal Civil Judge, Srihari faced investigation on charges of corruption and accepting illegal gratification. Although a preliminary inquiry report in September 1985 found that there was no evidence of the charges, the Supreme Court not only suspended him but also launched a full-fledged departmental inquiry against him. Although the investigating officer found that the charges were not proven, the Supreme Court ordered the dismissal of the petitioner in 1989. This order of dismissal was successfully challenged judicially by the petitioner before the Supreme Court and the writ petition was allowed in 1998. A representation that was the beginning of the next and current round of litigation sought monetary benefits, including severance, arrears of salary balance for the suspension period up to the date of retirement, and all salaries attached thereto. The administrative wing of the Supreme Court decided in 1998 to cut his pension for life. The decision was challenged in the current petition, which was filed at the turn of the century. Announcing the verdict, Justice Chalapathi Rao pointed out that mere suspicion should not replace evidence. Justice Chalapathi Rao stated that the Supreme Court’s recommendation to deprive the officer of pension benefits “was not based on due consideration of the findings of the inquiry report”. The delegation instructed the authorities to calculate Srihari’s pension debts from the date of retirement to the date of death and make the payments to his legal representatives. The board also made it clear that final benefits already paid to the deceased will not be reopened and family members will only be entitled to delayed pensions.

HC slams government for not regulating services

The Telangana High Court has once again slammed the state government for its attitude and approach in refusing to extend even terminal service benefits to a person who has worked for 25 years. In his written plea, Bookya Bhagwan complained to the panchayat raj department and Suryapet district panchayat officer for not serving in the post of clerk and bill collector even after 26 years of conditional service. While allowing the writ petition, Justice S. Nanda cited 16 judgments of the apex court and the Supreme Court to decide the writ plea. Pointing to the famous ‘Uma Devi’ case of the apex court, he said employees with irregular appointments holding duly approved posts and continuous service for more than 10 years should be regularized as a one-time measure. The judge requested the applicant to make a new statement containing all the documents that will prove his case, and the authorities will evaluate them in line with the stated decisions after giving the applicant an opportunity within four weeks.