THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU Wednesday the 30th day of July 2008 Writ Petition No.16512 of 2008 Between: The Deputy General Manager (Words), Govt. Regional Press, Kurnool District. Petitioner And: Sri B.Rama Krishnudu, Despatching Clerk (retired), H.No.B/B 234, B.Camp, Kurnool, Kurnool District. … Respondent For the reasons stated in the accompanying aﬃdavit, it is hereby prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to issue writ, order or direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Certiorari calling for the records relating to and connected with order dated 31.10.2007 in O.A.No.10050 of 2002 on the ﬁle of the A.P. Administrative Tribunal Hyderabad and to quash and set aside the same by holding as erroneous and contrary to law. Counsel for the petitioner : Government Pleader for Services I Counsel for the Respondent : - none - The Court made the following: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU Writ Petition No.16512 of 2008 ORDER: (per the Hon’ble Sri Justice Ghulam Mohammed) This writ petition is ﬁled questioning the order dated 31.10.2007 passed by the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad, in O.A.No.10050 of 2002. The respondent was working as Dispatch Clerk in the Main Press at Kurnool. By proceedings dated 22.03.2002, he was suspended, on the ground of misconduct and causing loss of Rs.3,58,848/- to the Government. Thereafter, by proceedings dated 17.10.2002, the petitioner directed recovery of the said loss of Rs.3,53,848/- from the salary of the respondent at the rate of Rs.3,000/- per month from the month of November, 2002 till his retirement and the remaining amount from his retirement beneﬁts. Aggrieved by the said proceedings dated 17.10.2002, the respondent ﬁled the O.A. The petitioner ﬁled counter denying the allegations made in the O.A., and thereby sought to dismiss the O.A. The Tribunal, considering the material on record, allowed the O.A., setting aside the proceedings of the petitioner dated 17.10.2002. Hence, this writ petition. Heard the learned Government Pleader for Services-I and perused the material on record. The petitioner issued a memo dated 04.09.2002 to the respondent calling for his explanation for the irregularities committed by him while discharging his duties. Pursuant to his explanation, the petitioner issued the proceedings, dated 17.10.2002, directing recovery of an amount of Rs.3,53,848/- from the salary of the respondent at the rate of Rs.3,000/- per month from November 2002 till his retirement and the remaining amount to be recovered from his retirement beneﬁts, on account of the alleged misconduct resulting in loss of the said amount to the Government. Admittedly, no enquiry was conducted under A.P.C.S (CCA) Rules 1991 by the date of the proceedings dated 17.10.2002, to ascertain whether the respondent has committed any irregularity and, thereby caused loss to the Government. Even the said order, also does not indicate the reasons for directing recovery of the amount from the respondent. On the other hand, it indicates that departmental enquiry is pending against the respondent with regard to the alleged misconduct. Therefore, when the enquiry itself was pending, an order directing recovery of the loss caused to the Government on account of the alleged misconduct of the respondent cannot be passed. However, the learned Government Pleader, referring to the explanation submitted by the respondent to the Memo dated 04.09.2002 issued by the petitioner, contended that since the respondent has admitted his guilt, the order of recovery was passed, and the Tribunal ought to have considered the same and ought not to have set aside the order dated 17.10.2002. But, a perusal of the explanation of the respondent shows that he had only stated, that because of heavy work, he has forgotten to demand L.R., from the lorry agent. It does not mean that he has admitted the guilt. The alleged misconduct was a matter to be proved in the regular departmental enquiry and it cannot be decided merely on the basis of the memo and the explanation. The Tribunal also rightly observed that there cannot be any recovery of such a huge amount from the respondent on the basis of an oﬃce memo, unless and until a departmental enquiry is held and the misconduct of the respondent is proved. Therefore, without conducting any enquiry and without passing any order pursuant to the enquiry, the respondent shall not be allowed to be mulcted with such huge liability. Considering all these aspects, the Tribunal has rightly set aside the order of recovery. We do not see any illegality or inﬁrmity in the order of the Tribunal below, calling for our interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The writ petition is, therefore, dismissed, leaving liberty to the petitioner to conduct an enquiry in accordance with law, if so advised. There shall be no order as to costs. ___________________________ (Justice Ghulam Mohammed) _________________ (Justice C.V.Ramulu) 30th July 2008 sh