IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE FOURTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 9415 of 1999 Between: K.Amarnatham S/o.late Chinakotaiah Resident of Vijayawada, Krishna District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Principal Secretary to Government Revenue Department, Secretariat Buildings Saifabad, Hyderabad 2 The Commissioner of (CT) A.P., CT & Excise Buildings Nampally, Hyderabad 3 The Accountant General Saifabad, AP., 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 an appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the order of the learned A.P.Administrative Tribunal , Dt.04/12/1998 in OA.No.7075/95 upholding the order passed by the Government in G.O.Rt.No.1405/Rev.CT.I Department, Dt.16/11/95 as illegal, arbitrary and without authority of law and without jurisdiction as also contrary to Rule 9(1) of A.P.Revised Pension Rules 1980 and consequently directing the respondents to release the full pension to the petitioner with interest in accordance with law and to pass such other order. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.M.V.K.MOORTHY Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR SERVICES II The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED and THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION No. 9415 of 1999 ORDER: (Per Ghulam Mohammed, J.) This Writ Petition is filed assailing the order passed by the A.P. Administrative Tribunal dated 4.12.1998 in O.A.No.7075 of 1995 upholding the order passed by the Government in G.O.Rt.No.1405/Rev.CT.I department, dated 16.11.1995, as illegal, arbitrary and without authority of law and without jurisdiction and contrary to Rule 9(1) of A.P. Revised Pension Rules, 1980 and consequently to direct the respondents to release full pension to the petitioner. The petitioner, who worked as Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, retired from service on 30.6.1991. Subsequently, the Government initiated an enquiry against him regarding certain procedural irregularities while disposing of some of the appeals and appointed the Joint Commissioner, Enforcement as enquiry officer. The enquiry officer, basing on the preliminary report submitted by the Joint Collector (CT), Guntur, framed the following charges against the petitioner on 16.2.1994: “Charge No.1: In the case of appeals listed out in Annexure ‘A’ he has admitted time barred appeals without even condoning the delay or stating the grounds on which the appeals were admitted. Charge No.II: In the case of appeals mentioned in Annexure ‘A’ he disposed of the appeals in undue haste without following the prescribed procedure. Charge No.III: In the case of the appeals mentioned in Annexure ‘A’ he allowed the appeals without going through the relevant records. Charge No.IV: In the case of appeals listed in the Annexure ‘A’ he has resorted to unusual practice of himself quantifying the values without any basis and without verifying the records.” After concluding the enquiry, the enquiry officer submitted his report on 18.3.1994 to the Government holding that no irregularities were committed by the petitioner and that there was no substance in upholding the four charges and suggested to drop further action against the petitioner. But, the first respondent disagreed with the report of the enquiry officer and held that the report is perverse and unacceptable and thereby issued a notice holding the charges as proved and proposing 20% cut from the pension payable to the petitioner, for which, the petitioner filed a detailed explanation. However, the first respondent having not satisfied with the said explanation, confirmed the provisional decision and passed a final order on 16.11.1995 in G.O.Rt. No.1405/Rev. (CT.I) Department ordering 20% cut in the pension payable to the petitioner. Questioning the said order, the petitioner filed O.A.No.7075 of 1995 before the A.P. Administrative Tribunal contending that the impugned order does not specify any loss to the revenue as required under rule 9 of the A.P. Revised Pension Rules and that the enquiry was ordered subsequent to his retirement contrary to the C.C.A. Rules without authority and that the impugned order is without application of mind to the facts and despite there being no pecuniary loss to the revenue of the Government as stipulated in Rule 9(1) of the A.P. Revised Pension Rules and therefore, the action of the Government in issuing the impugned order is illegal. Opposing the claim of the petitioner, the respondents filed a counter contending that when the Government appointed the enquiry officer, the petitioner filed O.A.No.3175 of 1992 to quash the enquiry proceedings but the said O.A. was dismissed against which the petitioner filed S.L.P.No.11827 of 1992 before the Supreme Court. It was contended that the report of the enquiry officer was not correct on the finding of there being no loss of the revenue to the Government and in fact, the loss that would have been occurred was prevented by the timely action of the Department and on examining the entire matter, the Government passed the order imposing the punishment of 20% cut in the pension of the petitioner. By the impugned order, the Tribunal dismissed the O.A. upholding the order of the Government. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader for Services-II and perused the records. Sri M.V.K. Moorthy, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner contended that the petitioner, as a quasi-judicial functionary, discharged his duties in a judicious manner and as the enquiry officer, after exhaustively considering the matter, came to the conclusion that the petitioner has not committed any irregularities, he ought not to have been punished. The Tribunal has not considered the matter objectively and erroneously dismissed the O.A. The learned counsel contended that no punishment can be imposed on the petitioner as he has only discharged the quasi-judicial functions and in support of the said contention, he has drawn our attention to the decision of the Apex court reported in Ramesh Chander Singh v. High Court of Allahabad and Another[1]. At para Nos.11 and 12, the Apex Court observed as under: “11. We fail to understand as to how the High Court arrived at a decision to initiate disciplinary proceedings solely based on the complaint, the contents of which were not believed to be true by the High Court. If the High Court were to initiate disciplinary proceedings based on a judicial order, there should have been strong grounds to suspect officer’s bona fides and the order itself should have been actuated by malice, bias or illegality. The appellant officer was well within his right to grant bail to the accused in discharge of his judicial functions. Unlike provisions for granting bail in the TADA Act or the NDPS Act, there was no statutory bar in granting bail to the accused in this case. A Sessions Judge was competent to grant bail and if any disciplinary proceedings are initiated against the officer for passing such an order, it would adversely affect the morale of subordinate judiciary and no officer would be able to exercise this power freely and independently. 12. This Court on several occasions has disapproved the practice of initiation of disciplinary proceedings against officers of the subordinate judiciary merely because the judgments/orders passed by them are wrong. The appellate and revisional courts have been established and given powers to set aside such orders. The higher courts after hearing the appeal may modify or set aside erroneous judgments of the lower courts. While taking disciplinary action based on judicial orders, the High Court must take extra care and caution.” On the other hand, learned Government Pleader for Services-II would contend that without there being any applications to condone the delay, the petitioner had entertained the time-barred appeals and disposed of the same without following the prescribed procedure. Though the enquiry officer gave findings that the charges were not proved, but nonetheless, the disciplinary authority disagreed with the findings of the enquiry officer and provisionally came to the conclusion that the petitioner has not followed the procedure prescribed under the A.P. General Sales Tax Act and it is only with regard to the misconduct, the proceedings were initiated. As seen from the record, the enquiry officer in his report dated 18.3.1994 has exhaustively considered all the charges. With regard to charge No.1, the enquiry officer observed in the report that the Government itself has issued G.O.Ms.No.376 Rev. (CT-II) department dated 2.5.1991 by virtue of which, the dealers were granted some concessions and the petitioner, relying upon the said G.O., entertained the appeals and gave effect to the said G.O. and therefore, the admission of the appeals by the petitioner acting under appellate authority was within his jurisdiction as provided under Section 19(1) of the A.P. General Sales Tax Act. With regard to charge No.II, considering the explanation of the petitioner that while disposing of the appeals he has followed the procedure prescribed under Section 19(3) of the A.P. General Sales Tax Act and under Rule 33 (4) of the Rules made thereunder, the enquiry officer held that the petitioner has followed the procedure prescribed under the said Act and there was no undue haste, as alleged. The enquiry officer has dealt exhaustively each and every charge and came to the conclusion that the stand taken by the petitioner is correct and he has not committed any mistake in entertaining and disposing of the appeals. As rightly observed by the enquiry officer, the petitioner while exercising the powers of appellate authority, has merely gave effect to the G.O.Ms.No.376 Rev. (CT-II) Department dated 2.5.1991 passed by the Government granting concessions to the dealers and there is no undue haste in disposal of the appeals. Furthermore, as rightly observed by the enquiry officer, there is no time bar for preferring the appeals as contemplated under section 19(1) of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act. That apart, as the alleged irregularities are in the process of discharge of quasi-judicial functions, the Department, if aggrieved, has to prefer an appeal/revision before the higher authority so as to modify/set aside the order, as held by the Apex Court in the decision referred to supra, but nonetheless, initiation of the disciplinary proceedings in the instant case, in our considered view, is unwarranted and unsustainable. In the circumstances, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned order of the Tribunal dated 4.12.1998 passed in O.A.No.7075 of 1995 is hereby quashed. There shall be no order as to costs. ______________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J. __________________ B. SESHASAYANA REDDY, J. December 04, 2008 Tsr. Copy to: 1 The Principal Secretary to Government Revenue Department, Secretariat Buildings Saifabad, Hyderabad 2 The Commissioner of (CT) A.P., CT & Excise Buildings Nampally, Hyderabad 3 The Accountant General Saifabad, AP., Hyderabad 4. The G.P. for Services-II, High Court Buildings, High Court, Hyderabad (OUT). 5. Two C.D. Copies 1 (2007) 4 SCC 247