IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU WRIT PETITION NO : 22761 of 1999 Between: Sant Kumar S/o.Bhupat Rai Barkatpura,Hyderabad. R/o.Hyderabad ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Union of India Rep.by its Ministry of Science and Technology Technology Bhavan New Maharuli Road New Delhi. 2 The Surveyor General of India Ministry of Science & Technology Govt.of India Haribarkala Dehradum U.P. 3 The Addl,Surveyor General of India Ministry of Science and Technology Govt. of India Survey of India Karmangala Bangalore. 4 The Director,South Central Eastern Circle (PMPP) Survey of India,South Eastern Circle Uppal Hyderabad 5 Mr.R.K.Jayavelu Director,South Eastern Circle (PMPP) Survey of India South South Eastern Circle Uppal Hyderabad. 6 The Officer incharge, No.53 party (S.G.C) South Central Circle Survey of India Barkatpuraa Hyderabad. 7 Lt.Col.V.R.Mahendra Officer-in-charge, No.49 Party (S.S.C) Survey of India Masab Tank Hyderabad. .....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 connected with Orders in C-358/S/2(A)(54) dated 7-11-97 on the ﬁle of the Addl.Surveyor General,Survey of India, Bangalore as conﬁrmed in order No,C-855/P.F.(Sant Kumar) dated 27-3-1998 on the ﬁle of the surveyor General of India, Survey of India, Dehradun (U.P) and further conﬁrmed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad bench Hyderabadd in O.A.No.797/98 dated 27-7-1999 and quash the same by issuance of the Writ of Certiorari or any other writ order or direction of like nature as being arbitrary,illegal,unconstitutional,null and void and consequently direct the respondents herein to settle the L.T.C.claim of the petitioner herein for travel undertaken by him for the period 6-7- 96 to 2-8-96; 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 Petitioner:MR.Y.VENKAT SASTRY Counsel for the Respondent No.: MR.M.RATNA REDDY (ADDL.S.C FOR C.G) The Court made the following : HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU Writ Petition No.22761 of 1999 ORDER: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice Ghulam Mohammed) This writ petition is ﬁled challenging the order dated 27-7-1999 passed in O.A.No.797 of 1998 on the ﬁle of Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench. 2. The petitioner herein ﬁled the above O.A. challenging the punishment of ‘withholding of next one increment for a period of one year without prejudice to future increments’, which was conﬁrmed by the appellate authority. The alleged misconduct against the petitioner is that he had submitted wrong PNR number and claimed LTC as if he had undertaken journey in the train from Varanasi to Secunderabad in First Class. After due enquiry and considering the defence set up by the petitioner, the authority has found the charges levelled against the petitioner are proved and recorded the ﬁnding that he had not travelled in the train on that day, relying upon the communication of the Railway authority concerned. The disciplinary authority imposed the punishment as stated above, and the appellate authority aﬃrmed the same. O.A. ﬁled by the petitioner was dismissed, so also Rev.Appln.No.56 of 1999. 3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned standing counsel for respondents. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has retired from service and that he has already suﬀered the punishment. On the other hand, learned standing counsel contended that the petitioner had submitted bogus LTC claim and the authorities and Tribunal have upheld the punishment and no interference is called for. 5. We have considered the rival contentions and perused the record. The respondent oﬃcials have called for the information from the Railway authority to know whether the petitioner had travelled in the train on the relevant date and the authority had replied in the negative. Thus, there is clinching evidence to prove the alleged misconduct. In the instant case, the petitioner had retired from service and the punishment imposed is stoppage of one increment without cumulative eﬀect. In fact, the punishment has worked out itself during the service of the petitioner. Since the punishment was only a minor one and it was imposed after conducting enquiry, we are of the opinion that no interference can be made with such a punishment. However, inasmuch as the petitioner had retired from service, the ordering of recovery of a meagre amount, may not be proper at this length of time. Therefore, the punishment to the eﬀect of recovery done is set aside and rest of the impugned order is confirmed. 6. The writ petition is allowed to the extent indicated above. No order as to costs. ___________________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J. ___________________ C.V.RAMULU, J. 21-07-2008 bsc