IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, TWELFTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO : 2808 of 2009 Between: The Union of India, rep. by its Secretary, Department of Telecommunications, 20, Ashoka Road, New Delhi. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Lakshmi Narayana S/o. Sitaram Department of Telecommunications, R/o. Plot No.168, Old Vasavi Nagar, Near Karkana, Secunderabad. 2 The Principal General Manager, Hyderabad Telecom Circle, Hyderabad. 3 The Central Vigilance Commissioner, Satharkatha Bhavan, GPO Complex, I.N.A. New Delhi. 4 The Union Public Service Commission, Sangh Lok Seva Ayog, Dholpur House, Shajahan Road, New Delhi. .....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 issue writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Certiorari calling for the records relating to O.A.No.380/2006 dated 04.07.2008 by the Hon'ble Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench and set aside the same as unjust and without any basis and contrary to law in the interest of justice and pass Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.M.RATNA REDDY (ADDL.S.C FOR C.G) Counsel for the Respondent No.: . The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION No :2808 of 2009 ORDER: (Per Ghulam Mohammed, J) This writ petition is filed challenging the order dated 04.07.2008, passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad, in O.A.No.380 of 2006, whereunder and whereby the proceeding dated 12.7.2005, imposing penalty of 10% cut in the monthly pension of the first respondent for a period of five years, was set-aside. 2. Respondent No.1 had joined the Posts & Telegraphs Department as Time Scale Clerk in 1961 in Hyderabad Telephones. He was promoted to the post of Junior Engineer in January,1991. He retired in September,2005 on attaining the age of superannuation . While so, the second respondent issued a Memo proposing to hold an enquiry under Rule –14 of CCS (CCA) Rules 1965 against the first respondent. The charge against the first respondent was that while functioning as JTO in the office of SDOP (North), he made illegal shift of telephone connection bearing No.3323964 on 4.9.1997 without properly checking the bonafides of the subscriber which resulted in providing telephone connection to one Mr.Ishoo Narang, Managing Director of Dhanush Exim Limited and thereby exhibited lack of devotion to duty and acted in a manner unbecoming of a Government servant contravening the provisions of the Conduct Rules. Since respondent No.1 denied the said charges, the disciplinary authority appointed an Enquiry Officer to inquire into the allegations and the Enquiry Officer, after conducting enquiry, submitted his report holding that one part of the allegation made against the first respondent with regard to providing telephone No.3323964 without checking the bonafides of the subscriber, was proved and the said act provided way for illegal shift of telephone for carrying business by private people and loss to the Government. The enquiry report was sent to the Central Vigilance Commission (CVC) and on receipt of the communication from CVC, it was served on the first respondent by proceedings dated 8.7.2004 under Rule 9 of CCS (Pension) Rules and he gave explanation on 18.8.2004 to the said proceedings. The President being the disciplinary authority, consulted with the U.P.S.C., and passed final orders on 12.7.2005 imposing a penalty of 10% cut in the monthly pension of the first respondent for a period of five years. Challenging the same, the first respondent filed O.A. and the same was allowed. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed the present writ petition. 3. Learned Standing Counsel for the Central Government contended that the first respondent without verifying the bonafides of the subscriber directly or through his subordinates, shifted the telephone to the Premises of one Dhanush Exim Ltd., and the said act led to illegal shifting of telephone for carrying out illegal business by private people and loss to the Government. The learned counsel further contended that the authorities after conducting due enquiry by giving opportunity to the first respondent imposed the punishment, and therefore, the Tribunal ought not to have interfered with the findings of the disciplinary authority and in support of his contention, he relied upon a decision reported in Govt. of A.P. Vs. Mohd. Nasrullah Khan,[1] 4. A perusal of the record would show that the only charge proved against the first respondent was that he did not verify the bonafides of the occupant of the premises to which telephone was shifted, which resulted in carrying out illegal business by private people and caused loss to the Government. But, since it is borne out from the record that it was not the responsibility of the first respondent to verify the boanfides of the subscriber for shifting or transferring the telephone and since the transfer application was not given to him to compare the signature of the occupant of the premises to which the telephone was shifted, the said lapse cannot be attributed to the first respondent. The enquiry conducted by the disciplinary authority against the first respondent is vitiated. In the circumstances, we do not find any infirmity in the impugned order so as to call for interference by this court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. 5. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs _____________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED,J ________________ SANJAY KUMAR,J 12.03.2009 Stp ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1) 2 CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{MSN} [1] 2006-Labin-1-906, 2006-SRJ-3-303, 2006 (TLS) 41964