THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED and THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR W.P.No.18348 of 2008 ORDER: (Per Sri Justice Ghulam Mohammed, J) This writ petition is filed seeking a writ of certiorari to quash the order dated 09.06.2005 passed in O.A.No.2420 of 2005 by the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad (for short ‘the Tribunal). 2. The brief facts of the case are as follows: The petitioner’s husband, Y. Janardhan Rao, died in harness on 25.03.2004 while working as Special Tahsildar Revenue Division (LA) at Collector’s Office, Visakhapatnam. While he was working as Senior Assistant, ESCOM, he committed certain irregularities, for which, charges were framed and enquiry was conducted, wherein the charges held substantiated and in consequence thereof, punishment of stoppage of two increments with cumulative effect besides recovery of an amount of Rs.83,991-77ps was imposed on him vide G.O.Rt.No.355 dated 21.03.1991. Challenging the same, the petitioner’s husband filed O.A.No.22195 of 1991 before the Tribunal, which in turn allowed the same on 01.11.2001 by setting aside the said G.O. on the ground that the respondents before imposing the major punishment to him have not followed the procedure prescribed under Rule 19(2) of the APCS (CCA) Rules, 1963 (for short ‘the Rules). However, it does not preclude the respondents from initiating fresh enquiry against Sri Y.Janardhan Rao strictly in accordance with Rule 19(2) of the Rules. Pursuant to the same, the respondents issued a show cause notice to the petitioner’s husband as to why a suitable penalty as specified under Rule 9 of the Rules, 1991 should not be imposed besides recovery of an amount of Rs.83,991-77ps from him. He submitted explanation on 20.11.2003. While the matter stood thus, he died on 25.03.2004. The petitioner states that without considering the explanation of her husband, the respondents issued memos dated 18.11.2004 and 07.05.2005 ordering that an amount of Rs.83,991-77ps shall be recovered under Revenue Recovery Act from the terminal benefits of her husband. Challenging the said memos, she filed O.A.No.2420 of 2005 before the Tribunal, which in turn disposed of the same granting liberty to the respondents to take action as contemplated in Memo dated 18.11.2004 issued by the first respondent. Aggrieved by the same, she filed the present writ petition. 3. Respondents filed counter affidavit stating that pursuant to the order of the Tribunal in O.A.No.2420 of 2005, the first respondent has submitted pension proposals of Sri Y.Janardhana Rao while deducting an amount of Rs.83,991-77ps from the pensionary benefits as per the orders of the Collector, Visakhapatnam and in pursuance of the memo dated 18.11.2004. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner strenuously contended that the Tribunal has not considered the matter in proper perspective inasmuch as earlier it had passed the order dated 01.11.2001 in O.A.No.22195 of 1991, setting aside the punishment order dated 21.03.1991 and directing the respondents to initiate fresh enquiry, but nonetheless, without conducting fresh enquiry, the respondents issued a show cause notice to the husband of the petitioner. He further contended that in the counter filed in the O.A., the respondents stated that the District Supply Officer (City), Visakhapatnam, who worked as additional charge for three months, is exempted from the proposed recovery of double the amount. He also contended that in respect of the similarly situated employees, who died, the proceedings stand abated. 5. Learned Government Pleader for Services-II vehemently contended that under Rule 9 of the Revised Pension Rules, 1980, when the employee died during the pendency of the proceedings, the punishment alone stands abated, but as far as recovery is concerned, the Government is at liberty to recover the same from the terminal benefits of the deceased employee. 6. Heard both sides. 7. Now, the point that arises for consideration is whether the order of the Tribunal suffers from infirmity or jurisdictional error warranting interference by this Court. 8. Admittedly, as the charges framed against the petitioner’s husband held substantiated in the enquiry, the respondents imposed on him the punishment of stoppage of two increments with cumulative effect besides recovery of an amount of Rs.83,991-77ps vide G.O.Rt.No.355 dated 21.03.1991, which was set aside by the Tribunal by its order dated 01.11.2001 in O.A.No.22195 of 1991 on the ground that the respondents have not followed the procedure prescribed under Rule 19(2) of the Rules while observing that the respondents are not precluded from initiating fresh enquiry against the petitioner’s husband in accordance with Rule 19(2) of the Rules. It is not in dispute that pursuant to the order of the Tribunal, the respondents did not conduct any enquiry against the petitioner’s husband in accordance with law. However, they issued memos dated 18.11.2004 and 07.05.2005 for recovery of an amount of Rs.83,991-77ps from his terminal benefits based upon the earlier enquiry report, which in our considered opinion is impermissible in law. The Tribunal without considering the said aspect passed the order impugned. In the circumstances, the order impugned and the memo dated 18.11.2004 are liable to be set aside. 9. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed setting aside the order impugned and the memo dated 18.11.2004. No costs. _____________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J _________________ SANJAY KUMAR, J Date:23.02.2010 sj