HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.G. SHANKAR WP No.8829 of 2004 O R D E R: (per Hon’ble Sri Justice Ghulam Mohammed) Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Revenue. Perused the impugned order passed by the Tribunal. 2. This Writ Petition is filed to quash the order dated 03.02.2004 passed in O.A.No.6827 of 1998 by the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad, including the order passed by the respondent dated 22.04.1998 in ROC.A4 13114/97. 3. The applicant in the OA is the writ petitioner herein. He is aggrieved by the orders issued by the District Collector, West Godavari District in ROC.A4 13114/97 dated 22.4.1998 wherein an amount of Rs.28,700/- was ordered to be recovered in 15 instalments towards the cost of shortage of 40 units of P.D.S.Rice bags for which the applicant was held responsible when he worked as Special Deputy Tahasildar (Enforcement) in MRO’s Office, Chintalapudi. 4. As seen from the impugned order passed in O.A., the applicant while working as Special Deputy Tahasildar (Enforcement) in MRO’s Office, he was kept incharge as Technical Assistant, incharge of M.L.S.Point, Chinthalapudi from 16.5.1992 to 27.5.1992 during the leave period of the Technical Assistant of A.P.C.S.Corporation. After the Technical Assistant returned from leave, it was found that there was a shortage of 40 Units of P.D.S.Rice. As such, disciplinary proceedings were initiated, which culminated in punishment of stoppage of two annual grade increments without cumulative effect. 5. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the then District Collector, having found that the charges are not proved, ought not to have ordered withholding of two annual increments without cumulative effect. It is also stated that in the appeal preferred to the Commissioner of Land Revenue, Hyderabad, the Commissioner of Land Revenue, had allowed the appeal on merits on 21.07.1994 and set aside the impugned order passed by the District Collector, and directed the District Collector to take follow up action to implement the same. When once the appellate Authority set aside the punishment, once again it is not open for the primary authority to reopen the same on the same set of facts. Reference can be made to Rule 18 of the Classification, Control and Appeal Rules, which reads hereunder: “Rule 18:- Lower Authority not to reopen case: Higher Authority can exercise power:- 1) Where in any case a higher authority has imposed or declined to impose a penalty under Rule 11, 12 or 14, a lower authority shall have no jurisdiction to proceed under these Rules in respect of the same case. 2) Where in any case a lower authority has imposed a penalty or exonerated a member of a service, it shall not debar a higher authority from exercising his power under these rules in respect of the same case. The order of such higher authority shall supersede any order passed by a lower authority in respect of the same case”. 6. As stated above, when once a higher authority has passed an order, the authority below to him has no jurisdiction to proceed under this Rule in respect of the same case. Since the appellate authority has passed the order with regard to the alleged mis-conduct and has set aside the punishment and ordered that the period of suspension be treated as on duty, the question of again passing an order directing recovery does not arise. 7. In the circumstances, the Writ Petition is allowed and the impugned order passed by the Tribunal is set aside. No costs. __________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED,J ______________​__ K.G SHANKAR,J 25th January, 2011. PNV