IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWENTY NINETH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED and THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU WRIT PETITION No,16117 of 2008 Between: 1 The Principal Secretary to Government, Agriculture & Cooperation (Vig.II) Department, A.P. Secretariat, Hyderabad. 2 The Commissioner & Director of Agricultural Marketing, Government of Andhra Pradesh, BRKR Bhavan, Hyderabad. ..... PETITIONERS AND D. Raja Rao S/o. (Late) Sreeramulu, Selection Grade Secretary, Agricultural Marketing Committee, Piduguralla, Guntur DIstrict. .....RESPONDENT Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Aﬃdavit ﬁled herein the High Court may be pleased to issue a writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Certiorari calling for the records relating to and connected with the orders dt.1-11-2007 in O.A.No. 4976/2007 on the ﬁle of the A.P. Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad and to quash or set aside the same by holding as erroneous and contrary to law and erroneous. Counsel for the Petitioners: GP FOR SERVICES I Counsel for the Respondent: MR. PRATAP NARAYAN SANGHI The Court made the following: THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU WRIT PETITION No.16117 OF 2008 ORDER: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice Ghulam Mohammed) This writ petition is ﬁled questioning the order, dated 01.11.2007, passed in O.A.No.4976 of 2007, on the ﬁle of Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad. 2. The aforesaid O.A. was ﬁled by the respondent herein, challenging G.O.Rt.No.133 dated 16.02.2006 issued by the Government, whereby, after conducting a detailed enquiry, the respondent was imposed with the penalty of stoppage of three annual grade increments with cumulative eﬀect for certain irregularities committed by him in the implementation of Rythu Bandhu Pathakam, while working as Selection Grade Secretary in Agricultural Market Committee, Guntur. 3. It was the case of the respondent that the disciplinary authority, having disagreed with the ﬁndings of the Enquiry Oﬃcer holding him not guilty of the charges, neither conducted any enquiry thereafter nor examined the records and has not even assigned any reasons for such disagreement, and, hence, issuance of impugned G.O. imposing a major penalty is arbitrary and illegal. 4. The petitioners herein resisted the O.A. by ﬁling a counter-aﬃdavit, wherein it was stated that, having disagreed with the Enquiry Oﬃcer’s report, the disciplinary authority has issued a memo, vide Memo No.1884/V.C.II(1)/2003-6 dated 07.10.2005, to the respondent, furnishing the Enquiry Officer’s report therewith, and pursuant to the explanation submitted by the respondent, the impugned G.O. has been passed. 5. The Tribunal, having considered the matter, held that the procedure adopted by the disciplinary authority is in violation of the principles of natural justice, as the applicant, respondent herein, has not been heard while disagreeing with the Enquiry Officer’s report. In this regard, the Tribunal relied on a decision of the Supreme Court in Yoginath D. Bagde v. State of Maharashtra and another[1], wherein it was held as under: “D. Service Law – Departmental Enquiry – Enquiry Report – Findings favourable to charged employee – Law laid down in Punjab National Bank vs. Kunj Behari Misra, 1998 (7) SCC 84, regarding giving opportunity of hearing to charged employee before reversing ﬁndings of the Enquiry Oﬃcer – Held, requirement of aﬀording opportunity of hearing, as laid in Kunj Behari Misra case, being in consonance with Art.311 (2) and being a constitutional right to be heard, has to be read into a rule which does not makes speciﬁc provision to this eﬀect – Disciplinary Authority before forming its ﬁnal opinion, has to convey to charged employee its tentative reasons for disagreeing with the ﬁndings of the Enquiry Oﬃcer – Show cause notice issued in the present case to appellant with regard to proposed punishment, held, did not meet requirement of the law because ﬁnal decision to disagree with the Enquiry Oﬃcer had already been taken before issuing show cause notice – Post decisional hearing, further held, through available in certain cases, was of no avail, at least in the circumstances of the present case – Maharashtra Civil Services (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1979, R. 9 (2) – Constitution of India, Art.11 (2) – Administrative Law – Natural Justice – Right to hearing – when to be read into statutory rules – Post decisional hearing when not a substitute for pre-decisional hearing.” Accordingly, by the impugned order dated 01.11.2007, the Tribunal has allowed the O.A., setting aside G.O.Rt.No.133 dated 16.02.2006 impugned in the O.A., and remanded the matter to the disciplinary authority to follow the procedure of putting the applicant on notice for hearing with respect to the grounds for disagreement of the Enquiry Oﬃcer’s report and to pass appropriate orders in accordance with the law laid down by the Apex Court in the decision referred to above. 6. Learned Government Pleader for Services-I contends that the disciplinary authority has disagreed with the ﬁndings of the Enquiry Oﬃcer, since the irregularities committed by the respondent are well established as per the record, and the same has been communicated to the respondent vide Memo dated 07.10.2005, and therefore, the Tribunal ought not to have passed the impugned order setting aside the G.O. impugned and remanding the matter for fresh consideration. 7. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent supported the impugned order passed by the Tribunal. 8. A perusal of the memo dated 07.10.2005 issued by the disciplinary authority to the respondent, informing about rejection of the ﬁndings of the Enquiry Oﬃcer and asking the respondent to show cause as to why a major penalty should not be imposed on him, would clearly show that the disciplinary authority has not given any cogent and convincing reasons for not accepting the ﬁndings of the Enquiry Oﬃcer. In the circumstances, we are of the considered opinion that the Tribunal has rightly set aside the G.O. impugned and remanded the matter to the disciplinary authority to follow the procedure of putting the applicant on notice for hearing with respect to the grounds for disagreement of the Enquiry Oﬃcer’s report and to pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. There is no illegality in the impugned order warranting interference of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The writ petition is devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed. 9. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. However, the disciplinary authority is directed to conclude the proceedings and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs. _______________________ JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED _________________ JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU 29th July, 2008 IBL [1] 1999 (7) SCC 739