TMI Blog2007 (1) TMI 562X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 8 questioning the correctness of the judgment and order dated 17.4.2003 passed by the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal in O.A.No. 4866/2001 and C.A. No. 758/2001. 3. The basic fact of the matter is not in dispute. 4. Respondent herein was working as a Principal in various colleges, situated in the State of Andhra Pradesh. On or about 18.7.1990, several charges of misconduct were framed against him. A departmental proceedings was initiated. In the said departmental proceedings, the Inquiry Officer submitted his report on 8.1.1992. However, before any action could be taken pursuant to and in furtherance of the said report, the respondent retired on 30.6.1992. 5. A proceeding was initiated against the respondent upon service of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ent has illegally been withheld for a payable to the respondent has illegally been withheld for a long time, directed: Accordingly the writ petition is disposed of directing the Government to release full pension to the petitioner from 01.07.1992 duly giving credit to the pension already paid to him. The pension, as directed above, shall be released to the petitioner within a period of two (02) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The arrears of pension shall carry interest at the rate of 12% per annum from 01.071992 till date of payment. 7. The writ petition filed by the respondent herein questioning a part of the order of the Tribunal was also dismissed. 8. The principal issue which falls for our deteriminat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... upam ₹ 40, 801=70 (Disciplinary case) (5) Incremental arrears irregularly sanctioned ₹ 7,572 by himself from 1/87 to 4/92 (6) Excess HRA drawn at GJC, Chodavarm, ₹ 9,240=00 from 5/87 to 10/89 (7) Surrender leave salary due to irregular ₹ 1,386=40 credit of earned leave for Panchayat Raj Election in 1980-81 (8) Govt. Junior College, Parvathipuram ₹ 1,43,538=00 Total ₹ 4,50,293=00 11. It may be true that there was some delay on the part of the appellants to concude the departmental proceedings. The Tribunal did not accept the contention raised on behalf of the respondent that only by reason thereof the entire departmental proceedings became vitiated. The High Court thus, in our opinion, was r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ployer condoned the lapsee on the part of the employee; (2) where the delay caused prejudice to the employee. Such a case of prejudice, however, is to be made out by the employee before the Inquiry officer. 13. This aspect of the matter is now squarely covered by the decisions of this Court in Secretary to the Govt. Prohibition Excise Deptt. v. L. Srinivasan, [1996] 3 SCC 157; P.D. Agrawal. v. State Bank of India and Ors., (2006) 5 SCALE 54; Deputy Registrar, Co-op Societies. Faizabad . v. Sachindra Nath Pandev Ors., [1995] 3 SCC 134. 14. Learned Councel appearing on behalf of the respondent, however, placed strong reliance on a decision of this Court in M.V. Bijlani. v. Union of India Ors., [2006] 5 SCC 88. That case was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
