THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED and THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G.BHAVANI PRASAD W.P.No.8372 of 2010 ORDER: (Per Sri Justice Ghulam Mohammed) This writ petition is filed assailing the order dated 26.11.2009 passed by the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad (for short ‘the Tribunal’) in O.A.No.2734 of 2006, whereunder and whereby the proceedings dated 06.04.2006 issued by the petitioner imposing on the first respondent the punishment of stoppage of four increments with cumulative effect, were set aside. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the first respondent, while working as Motor Vehicle Inspector, was served with a charge memo dated 17.02.2003 alleging that he committed certain irregularities and violated the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act and Rules made there under and he submitted his explanation on 21.02.2003 denying the charges. After enquiry, the punishment of stoppage of four increments with cumulative effect was imposed on the first respondent vide proceedings dated 06.04.2006, against which, he filed the above said O.A. before the Tribunal, which in turn allowed the O.A., setting aside the said proceedings. Challenging the same, the petitioner filed the present writ petition. 3. Heard the learned Government Pleader for Services-II and perused the material on record. 4. Learned Government Pleader for Services-II contended that based on the enquiry report, gravity of the charges and as per Rule 20 of the Andhra Pradesh Civil Services (CCA) Rules, 1963 (for short ‘the Rules’) the punishment was imposed on the first respondent and that the Tribunal ought not to have set aside the proceedings dated 06.04.2006 on the simple reason that the charge memo does not contain the enclosures. Therefore, he prays to allow the writ petition. 5. From a perusal of the order impugned, the Tribunal called for, verified the original record and found that the charge memo dated 17.02.2003 does not contain imputation of charges, annexure as required and the list of witnesses and the documents. The Tribunal held that as the last paragraph of the charge memo states that “as to why the disciplinary action should not be initiated” it cannot be treated as charge memo in accordance with the Rules and also relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in Vijay Singh V Union of India (2007 (3) SLR 871) and allowed the O.A. setting aside the proceedings dated 06.04.2006, however, observed that the order will not prevent the petitioner to proceed in accordance with the Rules, if he so desire. Therefore, we are of the opinion that the Tribunal has gone through the material on record, the relevant Rules and also following the judgment of the Apex Court, rightly allowed the O.A., which need not be interfered with by this Court. 6. The Writ Petition fails and is, accordingly, dismissed. No order as to costs. _____________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J ____________________ G.BHAVANI PRASAD, J Date:16.04.2010. sj