IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH 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 : 15643 of 2007 Between: 1 The Deputy Inspector General of Registrations and Stamps Department, Seethammadara (West) Door No. 60-60-35/10, Gurucharan Marg, Visakhapatnam. 2 The District Registrar of Assurances, Government Hospital Road, Srikakulam. ..... PETITIONER(S) AND 1 Sri Jada Naasimha Murthy Retired Sub Registrar, Opp. New Timpany School, Amadalavalasa, Srikakulam District. 2 Accountant General of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad. (R2 is only a formal party, as no relief is sought against him) .....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 more particularly one in the nature of writ of Certiorari" Calling for the records relating to the orders of the Hon'ble A.P.Admn., Tribunals Hyderabad passed in OA No. 409/2005 dt.18-1-2007 as being erroneous, illegal and unreasonable and quash the same and pas such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner:GP FOR SERVICES II Counsel for the Respondent No.: . The Court made the following : HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU Writ Petition No.15643 of 2007 ORDER: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice Ghulam Mohammed) This writ petition is filed seeking to quash the decision rendered by the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad, in O.A.No.409 of 2005 vide order dated 18-01-2007 by which the petitioners herein were directed to release the pensionary benefits to the first respondent herein with interest at 8% per annum on pension till the date of release. 2. The first respondent herein had retired from service as Sub-Registrar on attaining the age of superannuation, but the petitioners have not released the pensionary benefits to him. The petitioners contend that he was permitted to retire from service without prejudice to the enquiry contemplated vide order dated 29-3-2003 passed by the Deputy Inspector General of Registration and Stamps, Visakhapatnam, and as on today, the disciplinary proceedings are pending, therefore the pensionary benefits have been withheld. 3. In the instant case, the first respondent–employee has not been issued a charge- memo nor was he placed under suspension pending enquiry, when he was in service. The Tribunal after analysing the events, had categorically recorded the finding that no disciplinary proceedings are pending against the respondent. We do not see any material on record to take a different view. In fact, even as per the writ affidavit, the enquiry was sought to be initiated by order dated 29-3-2003, whereas the first respondent was permitted to retire from service on 31-3-2003. In other words, the disciplinary enquiry was contemplated two days prior to the retirement. It is not disputed that the first respondent was neither served with charge memo nor was he placed under suspension in connection with the alleged misconduct. In the circumstances, the Tribunal has rightly ordered the release of pensionary benefits with interest and the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. 4. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed at the stage of admission. ___________________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J. ___________________ C.V.RAMULU, J. 18-08-2008 bsc