IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE NINETEENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH WRIT PETITION NO : 3469 of 2007 Between: Agricultural Market Committee, Yellandu, Khammam District, Rep. by its Chairman. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Commissioner and Director of Marketing Governmetn of Andhra Pradesh B.R.K. Buildings Near Tank Bund Hyderabad. 2 D.V. Ramakrishna, S/o. Late Appala Raju, Assistant Market Supervisor, Agricultural Market Committee, Khammam. .....RESPONDENTS 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, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus Certiorari calling for the records in O.A.No.1751/2006 dated 18-10-2006 on the file of the Hon'ble Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad and quash the same as contrary to the settled principles of law and pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.V.V.N.NARAYANA RAO Counsel for the Respondent No.1: GP FOR SERVICES I Counsel for the Respondent No.2: SRI PRATAP NARAYAN SINGHI. The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI & THE HON'BLE SRI. JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH WRIT PETITION NO : 3469 of 2007 ORDER: (Per the Honourable Smt. Justice T.Meena Kumari) This writ petition is filed challenging the order, dated 18.10.2006 passed by the A.P. Tribunal in O.A.No.1751 of 2006. The 2nd respondent herein is the applicant before the Tribunal. He filed the above O.A. seeking to set side orders of the 1st respondent in DS.II (2)/647/2004, dated 6.3.2006 and to direct the respondents therein to reinstate him into service forthwith with all consequential benefits such as continuity of service, arrears of salary etc., on the ground that he was placed under suspension and an enquiry was conducted and after submission of the enquiry report, the 2nd respondent therein issued show cause notice, for which, the applicant submitted his explanation and thereafter, punishment of stoppage of four annual grade increments with cumulative effect was imposed and the applicant was reinstated into service by revoking the suspension orders, pending finalization of criminal cases filed against the applicant and while so, the 1st respondent reviewed the case suo moto and issued a show cause notice dated 17.6.2005, for which the applicant submitted his explanation. But the 1st respondent issued the impugned orders imposing the punishment of dismissal from service. The tribunal having observed that the revision authority has to examine with respect of the regularity or correctness, legality or propriety of any decision passed in the orders under review and in case of finding any such irregularity or incorrectness, the orders can be modified, reversed or remitted back for reconsideration and he may pass orders accordingly, but it is no where stated in the impugned orders or in the show cause notice as to whether any such irregularity or incorrectness of the orders under revision, is found and that the 1st respondent has reappraised the evidence and substituted the decision taken by the disciplinary authority by imposing the punishment of dismissal instead of stoppage of four annual grade increments with cumulative effect and the action of the 1st respondent goes to show that the revision authority pre- determined to inflict the punishment of dismissal against the applicant and the revision authority is not supposed to reappreciate the evidence or substitute its opinion with that of the original authority and it is only when serious irregularity or a legal infirmity in the orders under revision is noticed, it can interfere, allowed the O.A. setting aside the order of the 1st respondent. Having aggrieved by the same, the 2nd respondent in the O.A. filed the present writ petition. Heard the learned Counsel and perused the material available on record. It is to be noted that in case any irregularity or illegality is found in the order of the disciplinary authority, then the said order can be reviewed and modified. But, it does not disclose on the face of the record i.e., the show cause notice as to whether any such irregularity or illegality is crept in the course of the order of the disciplinary authority as rightly observed by the tribunal. In these circumstances, the tribunal is justified in setting aside the order of the reviewing authority. However, it cannot be concluded that setting aside the order of the reviewing authority, amounts to setting aside the earlier punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority in view of the gravity of the offence. At this stage, it is fairly submitted by the learned counsel for the 2nd respondent-applicant that the applicant is ready to accept the punishment of stoppage of four increments with cumulative affect as imposed by the disciplinary authority. In the present facts and circumstances of the case as well as the length of service that has been rendered by the applicant and considering the remaining service of the applicant and also in view of the fair submission made by the learned counsel for the 2nd respondent-applicant, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, We feel it a fit case wherein the punishment of stoppage of four increments with cumulative affect as imposed by the disciplinary authority, can be confirmed. Accordingly, the order of the tribunal is modified. Subject to the above modification, this writ petition is disposed of. ______________________ Justice T.Meena Kumari ____________________ Justice G.Chandraiah Dated:19.03.2008 Gurc/nn THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI & THE HON'BLE SRI. JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH WRIT PETITION NO :3469 of 2007 (Division Bench Order delivered by Honourable Smt. Justice T.Meena Kumari) 19/03/2008 ,