IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED and THE HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU WRIT PETITION No.15214 of 2007 Between: 1 State of AP., rep.by its Principal Secretary, Transport Roads & Buildings, Secretariat, Hyderabad 2 Engineer-in-Chief, R&B (Admn), Errum Manzil Hyderabad 3 Pension Payment officer, Hyderabad ..... PETITIONERS AND 1 Mohd.Haneef, Superintending Engineer (R&B) Retired, R/o.Krishna nagar, 8th Line, Guntur, Guntur District 2 Accountant General, AP., Hyderabad 3 Andhra Pradesh Public Service Commission, rep.by its Secretary, Gruhakalpa, Nampally Road, 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 to issue a writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of certiorari calling for the records relating to the orders of the Hon`ble AP Admn.Tribunal, Hyderabad passed in OA.No.3547 of 2002 dated 31.3.2006 as being erroneous illegal, and unreasonable and quash the same. Counsel for the Petitioners: 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 C.V.RAMULU WRIT PETITION No.15214 of 2007 ORAL ORDER: (per GHULAM MOHAMMED,J) This Writ Petition is filed by the Government seeking a Certiorari to call for the records relating to the Order dated 31-3-2006 passed in O.A.No.3547 of 2002 on the file of Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad and to quash the same as being erroneous. Respondent No.1 herein filed the O.A. seeking to declare G.O.Ms.No.88, Transport, Roads and Buildings (Ser.I.3) Department, dated 25-4-1998 and the Government Memo No.3752/Ser.I/(3)/2000-3, dated 20-12-2001 as arbitrary and illegal and consequently to direct the petitioners herein to forthwith release full pension. It was his case before the Tribunal that he is a retired Superintending Engineer (R&B) and aged about 63 years. While he was in service and working in the capacity of Superintending Engineer, a charge memo was issued alleging certain irregularities and departmental enquiry was conducted against him. The Engineer-in-Chief (R&B) framed articles of charges and conducted departmental enquiry. The Enquiry Officer submitted his report; basing on which, G.O.Ms.No.88, dated 25-4-1998 was issued accepting the report of the Enquiry Officer and imposing a punishment of 40% (10%+10%+20%) cut in the pension of the applicant. The appeal filed thereagainst was also dismissed by Memo dated 20-12- 2001. Challenging the said Orders, respondent No.1 herein filed O.A.No.3547 of 2002. The Tribunal, after considering the matter elaborately, held that it is only the Government, which is the disciplinary authority, that has to frame charges against the applicant and not the Engineer-in-Chief. It also gave a specific finding that there was no financial loss caused to the Government. On these two grounds, the Tribunal allowed the O.A. Challenging the same, the present Writ Petition is filed. Learned Government Pleader for Services II appearing for the petitioners contended that with regard to the initiation of disciplinary proceedings, the Government had issued instructions directing the Engineer-in-Chief to take action against the 1st respondent-applicant and accordingly, the charges were framed by the Engineer-in-Chief and the punishment of cut of 40% pension (10% each on two charges and 20% on the third charge) is just and proper, since the charges alleged and proved against the 1st respondent are severe. Heard the learned counsel for the 1st respondent, who supported the impugned Order of the Tribunal. The issue - whether framing of charges by the disciplinary authority is a mandatory requirement under Rule 20 of the A.P. Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules,1991 - was elaborately dealt with by the Tribunal. Following the judgment of a Full Bench of this Court, it was held that framing of charges by the disciplinary authority, is a mandatory requirement as per the said Rule and the same was not complied with, in this case. It was also held that the disciplinary authority in respect of the 1st respondent herein at the relevant time was the Government of Andhra Pradesh, but the charges were framed by the Engineer-in-Chief. Therefore, the contention of the petitioners that the Government issued instructions to the Engineer-in- Chief to conduct enquiry and, as such, the charges framed and the enquiry conducted by him are valid, cannot be accepted, since as per Rule 20 of the said Rules, the disciplinary authority (Government) has to frame the charges and conduct the enquiry. The Tribunal rightly held that all proceedings in pursuance of the charges framed wrongly and illegally by the Engineer-in-Chief and not framed by the disciplinary authority, including G.O.Ms.No.88, dated 25-4-1998 and the Memo dated 20-12-2001 are illegal and liable to be set aside and thus, set aside the same. The Tribunal also recorded a finding that even remotely, the Government has not sustained any financial loss due to the irregularities said to have been committed by the 1st respondent. The charges mention the irregularities said to have been committed by the 1st respondent and about his arrogant behaviour and do not, at all, mention about the financial loss sustained by the Government. Therefore, the cut of 40% permanently, from the pension payable to the 1st respondent, is contrary to law and violative of Rule 9(1) of the Andhra Pradesh Revised Pension Rules,1980 and hence the G.O.Ms.No.88, dated 25-4-1998 and Memo dated 20-12-2001 were rightly set aside and the petitioners herein were directed to forthwith release full pension, including all the arrears, payable to the 1st respondent herein. Respondent No.1 retired from service in the year 1996 and the punishment was imposed against him in the year 1998 and, by now, a decade has elapsed. The Tribunal has given cogent and convincing reasons for allowing the O.A. and setting aside the impugned Orders therein. We do not find any infirmity in the Order passed by the Tribunal. The Writ Petition fails and is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. _______________________ (GHULAM MOHAMMED,J) June 24, 2008 ____________ (C.V. RAMULU,J) prk