IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE FIRST DAY OF SEPTEMBER, TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G.BHAVANI PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO : 18862 of 2008 Between: 1 The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretariat, Hyderabad. 2 The Engineer-in-Chief (Administrative Wing), Irrigation & CAD Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad. 3 The Superintending Engineer, N.S.L.C. Circle, Nuzziveedu, Krishna District. 4 The Executive Engineer, N.S.C. Quality Control Division, Mylavaram, Krishna District. 5 The District Treasury Officer, at Machiliapatnam, Krishna District. ..... PETITIONER(S) AND A.Venkateswara Rao, Retired Assistant Engineer, Presently R/o. Plot No. 109, Ramapuram Colony, Poranki, Krishna District. .....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 to issue a Writ order or direction more paricularly 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 O.A.No. 1489/2006 dated 14-09-2007 as being erroneous, illegal and unreasonable and quash the same and pass Counsel for the Petitioner:GP FOR SERVICES II Counsel for the Respondent No.: . The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G.BHAVANI PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO : 18862 of 2008 ORDER: (per GHULAM MOHAMMED, J) This writ petition is filed seeking to quash the order dated 14-09-2007 in O.A.No.1489 of 2006 on the file of the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad (for short ‘the Tribunal’). 2. The facts which are relevant and necessary for deciding the writ petition are as follows: The respondent had worked as Assistant Engineer under the control of Superintending Engineer, NSLC, Nuzividu - 3rd petitioner, and he retired from service on 31-12-2001 on attaining the age of superannuation. Subsequently, the Engineer-in-Chief-second petitioner addressed a letter No. RC/ ENC/ F1/ 34417/ 04 dated 7.12.2004 to the 1st petitioner that a disciplinary case is pending against the respondent and further a huge amount of Rs.8,59,423/- has to be recovered from the respondent towards the recoveries for non handing over of 7F material at the Irrigation Circle, Vijayawada and recoveries were shown in the annexure in the ‘No Due Certificate’ and requested the first petitioner to sanction provisional pension to the respondent from the date of his retirement till finalization of the disciplinary case. Then the Accountant General, A.P. Hyderabad, issued proceedings dated 31.1.2005, wherein the respondent was sanctioned service pension with a cut of Rs.7213/- per month payable from 1.1.2002 and further sanctioned DCRG for an amount of Rs.2,38,813/-. Subsequently, G.O.Rt.No.19, dated 10.1.1995 was communicated through Memo dated 6.5.2005 to the respondent after his retirement, wherein a punishment of stoppage of four annual grade increments with cumulative effect, besides recovery of Rs.41,887.25ps was imposed on him. Aggrieved by the action of the petitioners, the respondent approached the Tribunal by filing O.A.No.1489 of 2006 to declare the G.O.Rt.No.19 dated 10.1.1995 communicated through Memo dated 6.5.2005 as illegal and direct the petitioners to pay pension and terminal benefits. 3. The Tribunal after taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case observed that the respondent has retired from service on 31.12.2001, whereas G.O.Rt.No.19 dated 10.1.95 has been served on the respondent through Memo dated 6.5.2005. The petitioners have not explained as to why G.O.Rt.No.19, dated 10.1.95 imposing a punishment of stoppage of four annual grade increments, besides recovery of Rs.41,887.25ps could not be served on the respondent while he was in service. Since the respondent has retired from service, the question of imposing punishment as per G.O.Rt.No.19 dated 10.1.1995 would not arise. It was also held that since the respondent has retired from service, the communication of the order in G.O.Rt.No.19, dated 10.1.95 through Memo dated 6.5.2005 is not legal and proper. It was also found that the petitioners have not placed any material to show that punishment was imposed in the year 1995 itself and they neither conducted any enquiry nor gave an opportunity of being heard in the matter, to the respondent with reference to the alleged shortage of Government material of Rs.6,02,866/- while working in the office of Superintending Engineer, Irrigation Circle, Vijayawada and petitioners are not entitled to recover any amount from the respondent without holding any enquiry nor giving any opportunity to the respondent. The Tribunal has relied on a decision of the Apex Court in Dr.Rashlal Yadav Vs.State of Bihar[1], wherein it was held as under: “What emerges from the above discussion is that unless law expressly or by necessary implication excludes the principles of natural justice, courts will read the said requirement in the enactment that are silent and insist on its application even in cases of administrative action having civil consequences.” 4. Following the above decision of the Apex Court, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the action of the petitioners is arbitrary and violative of principles of natural justice and declared that G.O.Rt.No.19 dated 10.1.1995 communicated through Memo dated 6.5.2005 is unenforceable. Further the petitioners were directed to afford opportunity before effecting any deduction of Government dues from the respondent’s pensionary benefits and accordingly, disposed of the O.A. 5. The learned Government Pleader for Services appearing for the petitioners contended that respondent was given reasonable opportunity by issuing a show cause notice. He further contended that as per G.O.Ms.No.85, dated 12.7.1999 and A. P. Revised Pension Rules, the petitioners are entitled to recover the Government dues even after the retirement of the respondent from service. 6. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and also submissions made by the learned counsel, it has come in evidence that no opportunity has been given to the respondent before passing the order to recover the alleged amounts due. The respondent retired from service on 31.12.2001 and he has been served with G.O.Rt. No.19, dated 10.1.1995 through Memo dated 6.5.2005. The petitioners ought to have given reasonable opportunity to the respondent when his individual civil rights are affected. Therefore, we are of the view that the Tribunal has rightly declared that G.O.Rt.No.19 dated 10.1.1995 communicated through Memo dated 6.5.2005 is unenforceable. 7. In these circumstances, we do not find any infirmity in the impugned order, so as to call for interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. 8. Accordingly the writ petition is dismissed. No costs. ______________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED,J ___________________ G.BHAVANI PRASAD,J 01-09-2008 Stp ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{SPJS} [1] 1994 (5) SCC 276