THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU Writ Petition No.25225 of 2007 Date: 23-01-2008 Between 1. The Government of A.P., Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Revenue (Regn.I) Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad and two others … Petitioners and P.Panduranga Rao, Sub-Registrar Grade-I, Internal Audit, O/o.District Registrar, Nalgonda, R/o.H.No.8-2-120/110/1/2/A, Road No.14, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad – 500 034 … Respondent THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU Writ Petition No.25225 of 2007 Oral Order: (per the Hon’ble Sri Justice D.S.R.Varma) Heard the learned Government Pleader for Services-II appearing for petitioners and Sri C.Srinivasa Baba, learned Counsel appearing for respondent-applicant. 2. This writ petition is directed against the order, dated 23- 10-2003, in O.A.No.6618 of 1999, passed by the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad (for brevity, ‘the Tribunal’) in allowing the said O.A., filed by the applicant. 3. It appears that the applicant was involved in an irregularity and after conducting a regular departmental enquiry against him, he was imposed with a minor penalty of stoppage of one increment without cumulative effect for a period of six months. The said order was passed by petitioner No.3 herein on 19-5-1988. The superior authority i.e., petitioner No.2 herein on 07-11-1998 issued a show- cause notice to the applicant having felt that the punishment imposed was too lenient. The same had been questioned before the Tribunal by the applicant and the Tribunal held in favour of the applicant and the show-cause notice had been set aside. Hence, the present writ petition. 4. It is the contention of the learned Government Pleader for Services-II appearing for petitioners that the Tribunal had allowed the O.A., on the simple score that when no new grounds have been shown, the revisional authority cannot exercise its revisional jurisdiction by issuing a show-cause notice to the applicant requiring an answer as to why the punishment imposed against him by the competent authority shall not be enhanced. 5. But, it has been brought to the notice of this Court that Rule 40 of the Andhra Pradesh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1991 (for brevity, ‘the APCS (CCA) Rules’) govern the field dealing with the revisional jurisdiction of the authority under the rules. 6. For ready reference, Rule 40 of the APCS (CCA) Rules is extracted hereunder: “Rule 40. Revision :--(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in these rules— (i) the Government, or (ii) in the case of a Government servant serving in a department or office under the control of a head of department such head of the department directly under the Government; or (iii) any appellate authority, or (iv) any other authority specified in this behalf by the Government by a general or special order and within such time as may be prescribed in such general or special order, may where a revision petition is preferred by the Government servant within one year of the date of receipt by him of the order sought to be revised, and in cases where no such revision petition is preferred within four years of the date of the order proposed to be revised either suo motu or otherwise and after calling for the records of any inquiry and examination, revise and order of penalty made under these rules or under the rules repealed by Rule 45, after consultation with Commission where such consultation is necessary. The said authority may exercise the power suo motu within four years from the date of issue of order of penalty by the competent authority or within one year of the date of receipt of the petition either confirm or reduce or set aside the order of penalty or any other order already issued, and where it is proposed to enhance the penalty, such authority may exercise the power within four years from the date of receipt of the petition and revise any order made under Rule 45 after consultation with the Commission where such consultation is necessary, and (a) confirm, modify or set aside the order; or (b) confirm, reduce, enhance or set aside the penalty imposed by the order, or impose any penalty where no penalty has been imposed, or (c) remit the case to the authority which made the order or to any other authority directing such authority to make such further inquiry as it may consider proper in the circumstances of the case; or (d) pass such other orders as it may deem fit : Provided that the Special Inspector General of Police (Law and Order) or the Deputy Inspector General of Police or an officer of the corresponding rank may, of his own motion or otherwise, revise an order passed on appeal by the authority subordinate to him; Provided further that no order imposing or enhancing any penalty shall be made by any revising authority unless the Government servant concerned has been given a reasonable opportunity of making a representation against the penalty proposed and where it is proposed to impose any of the major penalties specified in Rule 9 or to enhance the minor penalty imposed by the order sought to be revised to any of the major penalties and if an inquiry under Rule 20 has not already been held in the case, no such penalty shall be imposed except after inquiring in the manner laid down in Rule 20, subject to the provisions of Rule 25 and except after consultation with the Commission, where such consultation is necessary: Provided also that subject to the provisions of Rule 25, the revising authority shall: (a) where the enhanced penalty which the revising authority propose to impose, is the one specified in clause (iv) of Rule 9 and falls within the scope of the provisions contained in sub-rule (2) of the Rule 22; and (b) where an inquiry in the manner laid down in Rule 20 has not already been held in the case. Itself hold such inquiry or direct that such inquiry be held in accordance with the provisions of Rule 20, and thereafter, on a consideration of the proceedings of such inquiry, pass such orders as it may deem fit; Provided further that no power of revision shall be exercised by the head of department, unless— (i) the authority which made the order in appeal, or (ii) the authority to which an appeal would lie, where no appeal has been preferred, is subordinate to him. (2) No proceeding for revision shall be initiated or commenced until after— (i) the expiry of the period of limitation for preferring an appeal, or (ii) the disposal of the appeal, where any such appeal has been preferred; the Government Servant may however prefer a revision petition for revising the order or penalty within a period of one year after the appeal petition to the prescribed appellate authority is disposed off. (3) An application for revision shall be dealt with in the same manner as if it were an appeal under these rules.” 7. From the show-cause notice, dated 07-11-1998, issued by the revisional authority i.e., petitioner No.2 herein, it could be seen that the said authority was not satisfied with the quantum of punishment imposed against the applicant by the competent authority i.e., petitioner No.3 herein for the same reasons which were already on record, which led to the punishment of stoppage of one increment without cumulative effect for a period of six months. There are no new charges nor new grounds that have been placed on record in order to call for the applicant to explain as to why the said alleged lenient punishment shall not be set aside and impose a more rigorous punishment. 8. But, as could be perused from Rule 40 of the APCS (CCA) Rules, it is imperative for the revisional authority that it can exercise such jurisdiction only in case where new facts of the case have been brought to the light, subsequent to the issuance of final orders. 9. As already pointed out, as could be seen from the show- cause notice, dated 07-11-1998, no new facts have been brought on record. In other words, the same old charges and the same old grounds have been placed on record and the punishment imposed was not to the satisfaction of the competent authority. Mere dissatisfaction as regards the quantum of punishment by the revisional authority is not sufficient ex facie in the light of Rule 40 of the APCS (CCA) Rules, as extracted above. It is the new developments subsequent to the passing of the final orders that are more relevant and essential in order to exercise jurisdiction conferred on the revisional authority under Rule 40 of APCS (CCA) Rules. 10. This aspect has been considered with cogent reasons by the Tribunal and accordingly, we do not find any merit in the writ petition and the same is liable to be dismissed. 11. In the result, the writ petition is dismissed, at the stage of admission, confirming the impugned order passed by the Tribunal. ___________________ JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA ___________________ JUSTICE K.C.BHANU 23rd January, 2008. Ak