IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT: THE HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE V. ESWARAIAH AND THE HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE P. SWAROOP REDDY WRIT PETITION No.6030 OF 2009 Between: The Union of India, Rep by its Secretary, Department of Telecommunications, Ministry of Communications & Information Technology, 20, Ashoka Road,New Delhi. ..... PETITIONER AND M.R.S.V.Nagar Kumar, S/o. M.Ramayya, O/o. PGM, Hyderabad Telecom District, Abids, Hyderabad, R/o.Hyderabad. .....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 order or direction more particularly in the nature of Writ of Certiorari calling for the records pertaining to orders dated 19-08-2008 in O.A. No.723 of 2005 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench and quash the same as illegal, arbitrary and against the principles of law and pass Counsel for the Petitioner : MR. A. RAJASHEKAR REDDY (ASST. SOLICITOR GEN.) Counsel for the Respondent No.: . The Court made the following : ORDER: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice P. Swaroop Reddy) This Writ Petition is filed by the Union of India against the order dated 19-08-2008 in O.A. No.723 of 2005, passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad, which was filed by the respondent herein. 2. Respondent filed the O.A. challenging the proceedings bearing No.8/193/98-Vig.II dated 10-05-2005 issued by the petitioner imposing a major punishment of reduction by two stages in his time scale pay for a period of two years with further directions that he will not earn increments during the period of such reduction and on expiry of the said period, the reduction will have the effect of postponing his future increments of pay. 3. The following article of charge was framed against the respondent: “ Article That the said Shri M.R.S.V. Nagakumar, while functioning as Telecom District Manager, West Godavari, Eluru, during the period from 17.4.1995 to 5.2.1997, deliberately and with malafide intention, and without any authority, made irregular purchases of non-stocked items, viz. Changed Number Announcing Systems, Line Concentrators, and Audio Visual Cable Test Sets, for a total of Rs.31,59,241/- which failed when put to use in the field, without inviting tenders as prescribed, simply on the basis of letters from the suppliers, without any assessment of the requirement of such items and in the absence of any requisition from the field units, without constituting Stores Purchase Committee, far in excess of the delegated financial powers of the Telecom District Manager, in clear violation inter-alia of Department of Telecom circular letters No.29-1/82-MMD dated 26.5.1982, No.5- 8/90-EB dated 9.10.1990, No.6-10/93-EB dated 23.3.1994, No.51-6/91-MMC/Pt. dated 12.1.1993, No.26-9/95-MMC dated 10.11.1995 & 27.11.1995, Rule-2 in Appendix-8(Part-I) to Rule- 102(1) and Annexure to Chapter-8, of General Financial Rules, 1963, and Rules-60 & 61 of P&T Financial Hand Book Volume-I, thereby incurring huge avoidable expenditure, causing loss to the Department and corresponding undue pecuniary advantage to the suppliers. 2. Thus, by his above acts, the said Shri M.R.S.V. Nagakumar committed grave misconduct, failed to maintain absolute integrity and devotion to duty, and acted in a manner unbecoming of a Government servant, thereby contravening Rule 3(1)(i),(ii) and (iii) of the CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964”. 4. On enquiry, the Inquiry Officer found that the charge was not proved against the respondent. But, the Disciplinary Authority differed with the findings of the Enquiry Officer and imposed the punishment on the respondent as stated above. Respondent challenged the same before the Central Administrative Tribunal and the Tribunal held that principles of natural justice have not been followed, as such, another opportunity has to be given to the respondent to conduct the enquiry properly and accordingly set aside the proceedings dated 10-05-2005 issued by the petitioner remitting the matter to the Disciplinary Authority for re-examination in the light of the Inquiry Officer’s report. 5. Though in the first limb of the operative portion of the order of the Tribunal, it is stated that another opportunity has to be given to the respondent to conduct the enquiry properly, ultimately the direction is for re-examining the case in the light of the Inquiry Officer’s report by the Disciplinary Authority. 6. The Disciplinary Authority differed with the finding of the Inquiry Officer’s report, as he has not given appropriate reasons, as seen from the record. 7. In the circumstances, we do not find any illegality in the impugned order passed by the Tribunal, as such, the petition is liable to be dismissed. 8. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed with a direction to the petitioner to re-examine the respondent’s case in the light of the Inquiry Officer’s report by the Disciplinary Authority, as ordered by the Tribunal, and to complete the same as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of three months from today. __________________ V. ESWARAIAH, J June 23, 2009. __________________ P. SWAROOP REDDY, J PV/KL