IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED AND THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G.BHAVANI PRASAD WRIT PETITION No. 21232 of 2008 Between: M.Ramalinga Reddy S/o M.Ramachandra Reddy The Commissioner Of Employment and training A.P Hyderabad ..... PETITIONER AND The Govt of A.P rep.by its Principal Secretary Labour Employment Training and Factories(Vig) Department Secretariat Buildings A.P Hyderabad. .....RESPONDENT Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Aﬃdavit ﬁled herein the High Court will be pleased to issue a writ in the nature of certiorari or any other appropriate writ order or direction by calling for the records relating to the proceedings of the respondent bearing G.O Ms No.75 Labour Employment Training and Factories(Vig) Department dt 23-07-2005 and also order of the Hon'ble A.P Administrative Tribunal Hyderabad in O.A No.3710 of 2005 dt 27-11-2006 and set aside the same with all consequential beneﬁts by declaring the same as illegal arbitrary and unconstitutional and erroneous and to pass Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.S.GOPAL RAO Counsel for the Respondent: GP FOR LABOUR The Court made the following : O R D E R: (per Hon’ble Sri Justice Ghulam Mohammed) This writ petition is ﬁled seeking to quash the order passed by the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad in O.A.No.3710 of 2005 dated 27-11-2006, whereunder the Tribunal dismissed the O.A. upholding G.O.Ms.No.75, dated 23-07-2005, whereunder the punishment of major penalty of reduction to lower stage in the time scale of pay of Rs.8,400/- 16,525/- by three stages, not being lower than to which the petitioner was directly recruited, was imposed. The petitioner, who is a Deputy Director (Training), Oﬃce of the Commissioner of Employment and Training, A.P., Hyderabad, was imposed the penalty of reduction to lower stage in the time scale by three increments for the following charges: (i) That he resorted to irregular and illegal sponsoring of the ITI passed out candidates for Apprenticeship Training. (ii) That he changed the examination centers for All India Trade Test July, 1994 examination, without any application from the respective Principals and without prior approval of post factor ratiﬁcations from the Director of Employment and Training. Petitioner asserts that no fresh enquiry was conducted by the Commissioner of Enquiries, that the list of documents and witnesses, by which the aforesaid charges were to be maintained, were not communicated to him as contemplated under Section 10 of the Public Servants Enquiries Act and without considering his explanation, the impugned G.O. was issued. Respondent ﬁled a counter aﬃdavit alleging that the Commissioner, Employment and Training, AP, Hyderabad, issued charge memo to the petitioner, that the Additional Director, Oﬃcer of the Director, Employment and Training, was appointed as enquiry oﬃcer, who conducted a detailed enquiry, that an enquiry report was submitted holding charges 1, 3 and 5 are proved and that the Government issued G.O.Ms.No.80, dated 30-12-1999 dismissing the petitioner from service. Respondent further states that the said G.O. was assailed in O.A.No.13 of 2000, wherein the Tribunal set aside the G.O. on the ground that the enquiry was not held in accordance with the mandatory provisions under Rules 20 and 21 of APCS(CC&A) Rules, that a fresh charge memo was issued in G.O.Ms.No.1198, dated 15-05-2001, which was questioned in O.A.No.3117 of 2002, that the Tribunal set aside the memo granting liberty to the authorities to conduct enquiry in accordance with the APCS (CC&A) Rules and to complete the enquiry within three months and thereafter, the Government appointed Sri D.Ramaiah, Member, Commissioner of Inquiries, vide G.O.Rt.No.1476, dated 04-08-2003, as an enquiry oﬃcer to conduct regular enquiry into the charges levelled against the petitioner in G.O.Rt.1477 dated 04-08-2003. The charges are as follows: (i) He has resorted to irregular and illegal sponsoring of the ITI passed out candidates for Apprenticeship Training. (ii) He committed irregularities in issue of Hall Tickets to private candidates for appearing AITT examination held in January, February, 1995. (iii) Illegal change of Examination Centres of AITT July, 1994. (iv) He has indulged in tampering of Record of 61st AITT (APP.) Examination November, 1994. (v) He committed irregularities in changing marks and passing the candidates relating to AITT July, 1992. Respondent, in his counter, asserts that the Enquiry Officer sought clarification whether the enquiry has to be conﬁned to charges 1, 3 and 5 only as it was held that charges 2 and 4 were not proved in earlier enquiry, that the Government issued U.No. Note No.58/Emp.A3.Vig/2000-14 dated 07-01-2004, to conduct enquiry on charges 1, 3 and 5 and on the enquiry oﬃcer submitting his report that charges 1 and 3 are proved and charge No.5 as not proved, a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner and on considering his explanation, G.O.Ms.No.75, dated 23-07-2005 was issued imposing the major penalty of reduction to lower stage in the time scale of pay of Rs.8,400/- 16,525/- by three stages, not being lower than to which he was directly recruited. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that though the Tribunal had set aside the G.O.Ms.No.80 dated 30-12-1999 on the ground that the enquiry was not held in accordance with the mandatory provisions under Rules 20 and 21 of APCS(CC&A) Rules, in O.A.No.13 of 2000, the enquiry oﬃcer proceeded on the basis of the charges originally framed without framing fresh charges. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Services-I. The Tribunal noted that the Member of the Commission of Enquiries came to a deﬁnite conclusion based on the material on record, that it was proved beyond any doubt and with a mala ﬁde intention only, the petitioner had sponsored the applications only to favour the applicants. The Tribunal also noted that the ﬁndings of the enquiry oﬃcer and reasons for coming to the said ﬁnding are sound and based on material. With regards the charge No.3, the Tribunal noted that though the examination centers were ﬁxed by the Head of the Department, the petitioner changed the centers without any permission or sanction. Since the charges levelled against the petitioner are grave of resorting to irregular and illegal sponsoring of ITI passed out candidates for Apprenticeship Training and that of changing examinations centers for All India Trade Test July, 1994, examination and since they are proved beyond reasonable doubt, this Court’s interference would not be justiﬁed in such a case. The scope of judicial review is narrow and limited. It is for the disciplinary authority to impose the punishment and it is not for this Court to mould the punishment unless there is any error apparent on the face of the record. In the circumstances, it cannot be said that the order of the Tribunal suﬀers from any inﬁrmity necessitating interference of this Court. Hence, we do not ﬁnd any merit in the writ petition. The writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. However in the circumstances without costs. _________________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED,J ______________________ G.BHAVANI PRASAD ,J Dt:26 -09-2008 usd To 1. The Principal Secretary, Govt of A.P., Labour Employment Training and Factories(Vig) Department Secretariat Buildings A.P Hyderabad. 2. Two CCs to GP for Services-I, High Court Buildings, Hyderabad, (OUT). 3. Two CD copies.