IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU WRIT PETITION NO : 18551 of 2008 Between: The Hyderabad Urban Development Authority rep. by is Secretary, D. Rama Rao, S/o. Surana Greenlands Guest House, Ameerpet, Hyderabad. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 B. Manikyam S/o. Bheemappa R/o.H.No.1-9-113/2/B, Dayand Nagar, Vidyanagar, Hyderabad. 2 The Government of A.P., rep. by its Secretary to Government Municipal Administration and Urban Development Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad. 3 The Chief Engineer (HUDA) Greenlands Guest House, Ameerpet, Hyderabad. 4 The Engineer in Chief, R & B, Administration (EAP), Erramanzil, Hyderabad. .....RESPONDENT(S) 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 to issue a writ, order or direction especially one in the nature of Writ of Certiorari (a) calling for the records pertaining to O.A.No.7686 of 2001 and its order dated 16-4-2008 of the Hon'ble Tribunal and quash the same, (b) and pass Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.M.SURENDER RAO Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR MUNCIPAL ADMN. & URBAN DEV. The Court made the following : HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU Writ Petition No.18551 of 2008 ORDER: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice Ghulam Mohammed) This writ petition is ﬁled seeking to quash the order dated 16-04-2008 in O.A.No.7686 of 2001 on the ﬁle of Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad. 2. The details relevant and necessary for deciding the writ petition are that the ﬁrst respondent ﬁled the above O.A. challenging G.O.Rt.No.720, dated 19-6-1995 of Municipal Administration and Urban Development Department and the proceedings of second respondent dated 09-06-1999. By the said G.O., a sum of Rs.1,58,296/- is sought to be recovered from the ﬁrst respondent on the ground of irregularities committed by him while discharging oﬃcial duties. The Tribunal, after considering the rival contentions, set aside G.O.Rt.No.720 dated 19-6-1995, but refused to interfere with the proceedings dated 09-6-1999. Hence, the ﬁrst respondent in O.A. ﬁled this writ petition. 3. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the Government accepted the enquiry report, and after perusing the report, the order of recovery was made. Learned counsel further contended that the Government satisﬁed itself before concurring with the ﬁndings of the Enquiry Oﬃcer and issued the G.O. 5. In the instant case, the Enquiry oﬃcer appointed found the applicant, along with two others, guilty of the misconduct and hence, ordered recovery of money equally from the three delinquent oﬃcers. It is to be noted that the Government had accepted the Enquiry Report and directly proceeded to issue impugned G.O. Thus, it is clear that the Government has not complied with the mandatory provisions of Rule 21 of A.P. Civil Services (Classiﬁcation, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1991. In such an event, the G.O. impugned in O.A. cannot stand to judicial scrutiny by the court. Apart from this, the Tribunal had recorded the ﬁnding that proceedings dated 09-6-1999 is in the nature of internal correspondence and it has no jurisdiction to adjudicate the same in O.A. In the facts situation, we are not inclined to exercise the power of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and interfere with the impugned order. 6. The writ petition is liable to be and is accordingly dismissed at the stage of admission. ___________________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J. ___________________ C.V.RAMULU, J. 27-08-2008 Bsc