IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWELFTH 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 : 17446 of 2008 Between: Union of India, Rep. by its Secretary, Department of Telecommunications, 20, Ashoka Road, New Delhi. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 P.R.B. Kumar S/o. Late Venkata Subbaiah, O/o. GMTD, BSNL, Guntur. 2 Union Public Service Commission, rep. by its Chairman, Dholpur House, Shahjahan Road, New Delhi. 3 The Chief General Manager, Telecom, A.P. Circle, Door Sanchar Bhavan, Nampally Station Road, Hyderabad. 4 General Manager (Finance), O/o. C.G.M.T. BSNL, A.P. Circle, Nampally Station Road, Hyderabad. 5 General Manager, Telecom District, 1st Lane, Chandramoulinagar, Guntur. .....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 call for the records and to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly in the nature of Writ of Certiorari and set aside the order passed by the Hon'ble Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad in O.A.No.215 of 2006 dt. 23.01.2008 by declaring the same is illegal, unjust, contrary to law, arbitrary and in violation of the principles of natural justice and pass Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.S.S.VARMA 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.17446 of 2008 ORDER: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice Ghulam Mohammed) Union of India filed this writ petition challenging the order dated 23-1-2008 passed in O.A.No.215 of 2006 on the file of Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad. 2 . The first respondent herein is the applicant in the above O.A. assailing the proceedings dated 27-2-2006 by which punishment of reduction of pay by one stage in the time scale of pay of Rs.18,400–22,400 with cumulative effect, was imposed on him. The substance of misconduct alleged against the first respondent is that he had facilitated the enhancement of rent for acquiring office accommodation for housing the General Manager, Telecom District, Nalgonda, thereby causing undue pecuniary advantage to the landlord and thus, he had failed to maintain honesty and integrity. The first respondent was issued the charge memo and after submission of his explanation, an Enquiry Officer was appointed. After completion of regular enquiry, the Enquiry Officer submitted his report dated 25-2-2005 and it was found that the charge is partly proved. The disciplinary authority accepted the report and the same was forwarded to Central Vigilance Commission (CVC), which had recommended suitable minor penalty on the delinquent officer. When the delinquent officer made a representation to re-consider the decision of imposing minor penalty, the disciplinary authority consulted the Union Public Service Commission (UPSC) as per Rules. The UPSC differed with the findings of the Enquiry Officer and CVC, and opined that the entire charge framed against the delinquent officer was proved and imposed the penalty, as aforestated. The Tribunal, after considering the rival contentions, found that the disciplinary authority has not recorded the reasons for disagreeing with the findings of the Enquiry Officer and remanded the matter and directed it, to record the reasons and communicate the same to the delinquent officer and after receiving his representation/objections, pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. 3 . We have heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and perused the record. 4 . Admittedly, the Enquiry Officer found that the charge levelled against the first respondent was partly proved and the same was accepted by the disciplinary authority and CVC. But, UPSC after perusing the findings of the Enquiry Officer and the material on record, found that the entire charge was proved and recommended the punishment impugned in O.A. It appears, the disciplinary authority has not recorded the reasons for differing with the Enquiry Officer and there was no communication to the delinquent officer in this regard. When the disciplinary authority disagrees with the findings of the Enquiry Officer, the reasons for such disagreement have to be recorded in writing and the same must be communicated to the delinquent officer to enable him to putforth his case, thereafter appropriate orders need to be passed. In the instant case, such opportunity was not given to the delinquent officer while imposing the said penalty, which has resulted in violation of principles of natural justice. In the circumstances, the Tribunal has rightly set aside the order impugned in O.A. and remanded the matter to the disciplinary authority for recording reasons for such disagreement and communicate the same to the delinquent officer so as to give him an opportunity, before passing final orders in accordance with law. We do not see any infirmity, legal or otherwise, in the impugned order of the Tribunal. 5. In the result, the writ petition is dismissed at the stage of admission. ___________________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J. ___________________ C.V.RAMULU, J. 12-08-2008 bsc