IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE FIFTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G.BHAVANI PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO : 23837 of 2007 Between: 1 The Deputy Director, District Treasury, Nalgonda. 2 The Regional Joint Director, O/o. Regional Joint Director, Treasuries and Accounts Region-III, Hyderabad. 3 The Director of Treasuries and Accounts, A.P. Hyderabad. ..... PETITIONERS AND G.M.A. Siddiqui, s/o. Gulam Mushtafa, Senior Accountant, Sub-Treasury Officer, Nalgonda, R/o. Buktar Bowli Street, H.No. 3-5-60, Nalgonda. .....RESPONDENT 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 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. Tribunal, Hyderabad passed in OA No. 1726/2003 dated 03-9-2007 as being erroneous, illegal and unreasonable and quash the same and pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case Counsel for the Petitioners: GP FOR SERVICES II Counsel for the Respondent: MR.M.VENKAT RAM REDDY The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G.BHAVANI PRASAD WRIT PETITION No.23837 of 2007 ORDER: (The Hon'ble Sri Justice Ghulam Mohammed) This writ petition is filed seeking writ of Certiorari to quash the orders of the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad passed in O.A.No.1726/2003 dated 03.9.2007, and to declare the same as being erroneous, illegal and unreasonable and consequently to quash the same. The applicant, the first respondent herein was issued with a charge memo on 17.01.1997 whereunder, four charges were framed against him on the allegation of misappropriation of Military pension amount. An enquiry was conducted without giving an opportunity to the applicant in violation of the principles and a report was submitted on 16.03.1998 holding that the said charges were proved. The applicant was awarded a punishment of compulsory retirement besides recovery of a sum of Rs.2,79,756/- through proceedings dated 15.05.1998. Aggrieved by the same, the applicant preferred an appeal to the Director of Treasuries and Accounts, the third petitioner herein and the matter was remitted back to the disciplinary authority through proceedings dated 13.05.1999 with a direction to take action for conducting fresh enquiry as per the rules laid down and the punishment was subsisting. Thereupon, the applicant approached the Tribunal by filing O.A.No.4577 of 1997 and the Tribunal allowed the said O.A by order dated 26.07.1999 holding that the punishment imposed on the basis of the defective enquiry would not subsist and the applicant would revert to the position he was prior to the passing of the orders of compulsory retirement, and accordingly it directed the respondents therein to conduct a fresh enquiry in accordance with rules. But no fresh enquiry was conducted and no charges were framed. The enquiry officer, without conducting any fresh enquiry, copied the earlier defective report without giving any opportunity to the applicant to cross-examine the witnesses and to examine the witnesses, refused to summon the witnesses cited by the applicant and submitted an enquiry report against the applicant holding that the charges were proved. Based on the said report, the disciplinary authority again awarded punishment of compulsory retirement besides recovery of Rs.2,76,948/- through proceedings dated 14.02.2001. Aggrieved by the same the applicant preferred an appeal to the Director of Treasuries and Accounts. After receiving the appeal, the appellate authority issued a show cause notice to the applicant proposing to enhance the punishment awarded to him and called for his explanation. Though the applicant submitted his detailed representation, the appellate authority, without properly considering the same, awarded the punishment of dismissal from service through proceedings dated 20.02.2003 without paying any subsistence allowance for the period from the first compulsory retirement i.e., from 01.03.2001 to 12.03.2003. Challenging the same, the applicant filed the present O.A.No.1726/2003. Considering the entire material available on record, the Tribunal held that the second enquiry was not conducted as directed by the appellate authority or by the Tribunal and that the enquiry was conducted contrary to it and witnesses were not examined afresh and therefore, it set aside the impugned order dated 20.03.2003 including the punishment of dismissal. The order of the Regional Joint Director of Treasuries dated 14.02.2001 imposing a punishment of compulsory retirement was also set aside and the respondents therein were directed to conduct a fresh enquiry i.e., denovo enquiry, after giving an opportunity to the applicant to lead his own evidence and render all the assistance for summoning the defence witnesses and pass orders, in accordance with the rules. The Tribunal also directed the respondents to pay the subsistence allowance to the applicant, if not paid already. Challenging the same, the present writ petition is filed. During the pendency of the writ petition, the first respondent- applicant died on 15.11.2007 and his legal representatives are brought on record as respondents 2 to 7. Once the employee died, the disciplinary proceeding initiated against him abates. But, the learned Government Pleader for Services II contended that since the first respondent caused loss to the Government and misappropriated the amount of the Government the said amount may be recovered from his legal representatives and he has drawn our attention to Rule 9(7) of the A.P.(Revised) Pension Rules, 1980, which reads as under: “(7) Eventhough a Government servant has retired from service and was not before his retirement chargesheeted or called upon to explain why a pecuniary loss caused to the Government (or a local authority) due to his negligence, while he was in service, should not be recovered from him, the Government if they are satisfied that the loss is due to him, shall recoup the pecuniary loss besides all Government dues (or local authority dues) from the Retirement Gratuity. For this purpose, it shall not be necessary to get the consent of the Government servant or the consent of the members of his family in the case of a deceased Government servant, as the case may be. In such cases, it shall be indicated in the sanction clearly the amount of Retirement Gratuity admissible, a stated amount which shall be deducted from the Retirement Gratuity on account of Government dues or local authority dues or loss sustained by the Government servants due to negligence and the net amount of Retirement Gratuity payable to the retired Government servant.” A perusal of the above Rule clearly discloses that if the Government is satisfied that the Government servant caused loss to it, it can recoup the pecuniary loss besides all Government dues (or local authority dues) from the Retirement Gratuity. For this purpose, it shall not be necessary to get the consent of the Government servant or the consent of the members of his family in the case of a deceased Government servant, as the case may be. In view of the same, we are not inclined to entertain the writ petition. However, it is open to the petitioners to take appropriate action against the respondents in accordance with law, if they so desired. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. GHULAM MOHAMMED, J JUSTICE G.BHAVANI PRASAD, J Date: 05.11.2008 va