IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE NINETEENTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO : 27618 of 2008 Between: Mr. G.S.R. Seshagiri Rao, S/o. Ramatarakam, R/o. 3rd Street, Gandhinagar, Anakapalli, Visakhapatnam District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Government of A.P. Rep by its Prl. Secretary, Irrigation & CAD Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad. 2 The Engineer-in-Chief (Admn.) Irrigation & CAD, Department, Hyderabad. .....RESPONDENTS 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 by calling the records in OA 7045 of 2003 dated 20-11-2007 and the proceedings issued by the 1st respondent vide GO Ms.No. 88 Irrigation and CAD (CAD.SERVICES.II.2) Department dated 24-7-2003 and the consequential rejection order vice Government Memo No. 16444/CAD.SER.II (2) 1997-26 dated 13-3-2001 and set aside the same as illegal, arbitrary, discriminatory, without notice apart from being contrary to APCS (CC &A) Rules, 1991 and violation of article 21 of the constitution of India. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.C.SRINIVASA BABA Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR SERVICES II The Court made the following : ORDER: (Per GM, J) This writ petition is filed seeking a writ of certiorari challenging the order dated 20-11-2007 passed in O.A.No.7045 of 2003 on the file of the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad, the proceedings issued by the first respondent vide G.O.Ms.No.88, dated 24-07-2003 and the consequential rejection order vide Government Memo No.16444/CAD.SER.II(2)97- 26,dated 13.03.2001. The petitioner, who is a retired employee, states that while he was working as Executive Engineer in the Irrigation Department, charge memo dated 26-05-1997 was issued to him on the ground of certain irregularities, to which, he submitted an explanation. After conducting enquiry, the Enquiry Officer submitted his report dated 26-12-1998 holding that charges 1 and 2 were not proved and remaining charges were proved against the petitioner. Thereafter, a show cause notice dated 04.08.1999 was issued to the petitioner, for which, he submitted his explanation/representation, dated 25-09-1999 to the first respondent-disciplinary authority, who in turn, on examination of the enquiry report and the representation of the petitioner, passed order vide G.O.Ms.No.88, dated 24.07.2000 imposing punishment of 5% cut in pension of the petitioner besides recovery of an amount of Rs.14,222/-from him towards the loss caused to the Government. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed a review petition, but the same was rejected on 13.03.2001, against which, he filed O.A.No.7045 of 2003 before the Tribunal, which dismissed the same. Aggrieved by the action of the Tribunal, the petitioner filed the present writ petition. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Services-II. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that though the Tribunal has rightly observed that the enquiry officer in his report held that four charges were proved, but the disciplinary authority has stated in the show cause notice dated 24.07.2000 that six charges were proved, it dismissed the O.A., instead of allowing the O.A. or remitting the same to the disciplinary authority so as to follow the procedure under Rule 21 of the Andhra Pradesh Cooperative Societies (CC & A) Rules, 1991 (for short ‘the Rules’), for giving an opportunity to the petitioner. He further contended that the disciplinary authority cannot supplement its own findings without issuing any notice to the petitioner, which is a clear violation of principles of natural justice and contrary to the Rules. Thus, he prays to set aside the order impugned. Learned Government Pleader for Services-II contended that the petitioner, while working as Executive Engineer, has committed several irregularities in execution of works. He further contended that as the charges framed against the petitioner were grave in nature, the disciplinary authority can deviate from the findings of the Enquiry Officer, which are not binding on it. A perusal of the material available on record shows that the first respondent-disciplinary authority has committed a procedural irregularity while issuing G.O.Ms.No.88, dated 24.07.2000 under Rule 21 of the Rules, according to which, issuance of notice is mandatory in case of disagreeing with the findings of the enquiry officer. Therefore, without expressing any opinion on merits of the matter, we deem it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition by remanding the matter to the disciplinary authority so as to follow the procedure as per the Rules and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs. _____________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J _________________ SANJAY KUMAR, J Date:19.01.2009 sj