IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE THIRTY FIRST DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G.BHAVANI PRASAD WRIT PETITION No.23658 of 2008 Between: 1 The Commissioner of Panchayat Raj and Rural Employment, Himayathnagar, Hyderabad. 2 The State of Andhra Pradesh Rep. by its Principal Secretary to Government, Panchayat Raj Department, Secretariat, A.P., Hyderabad. ..... PETITIONERS AND Dharavath Srinivasa Rao, Presently working as E.O. (PR&RD), O/o. MPDO, M.P.P., Garla, Khammam 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 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 A.P. A.P. Admn. Tribunal, Hyderabad passed in O.A.No. 5237/2007 dated 17-06-2008 as being erroneous, illegal and unreasonable and quash the same and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: G.P FOR SERVICES II Counsel for the Respondent: Mr.T.R.Manohar Rao, Caveator The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G.BHAVANI PRASAD WRIT PETITION No.23658 of 2008 ORDER: (Per GM,J) This writ petition is filed seeking Certiorari calling for the records relating to the orders passed by the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad in O.A.No.5237/2007 dated 17.06.2008 and to quash the same. It is stated that the respondent herein, who is working as Extension Officer (PR&RD), was charged with a memo No.43046/VS.II/I/99-9, dated 15.04.2003 with regard to misuse of Janma Bhoomi funds to a tune of Rs.10,865/- on a work for his personal gain by recommending excess payment without withholding the advance paid earlier. After the enquiry, the Commissioner of Inquires submitted a report, and in pursuance of the show cause notice issued consequent to the enquiry report, the respondent herein submitted his explanation. Ultimately, the petitioners herein passed the final orders in Proceeding No.12514/CPR/E2.Vig/2000, dated 08.01.2007 imposing a punishment of stoppage of one annual grade increment with cumulative effect. Challenging the same, the respondent approached the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad and filed the above said O.A. The learned Government Pleader for Services – II appearing for the petitioners contended that the Tribunal ought not to have interfered with the punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority when once there is an allegation with regard to misutilization of Janma Bhoomi funds to a tune of Rs.10,865/- on a work for his personal gain by recommending excess payment without withholding advance paid earlier. The Tribunal, on considering the material available on record, held that the Enquiry Officer in his report stated that there was no personal gain as the same was not proved during the enquiry or otherwise and that the charge is proved against the respondent/applicant for his wrong payment. It also held that the counter filed by the Commissioner, Panchayat Raj and Rural Employment clearly goes to show that the order of punishment was imposed by the disciplinary authority without independent application of mind, under the influence of the directions of the Government in their memo dated 29.07.2006. It further held that the disciplinary authority has never examined the explanation given by the applicant, and on the face of it, the enquiry itself has been conducted on a wrong premise, as the charge said to have been proved in the enquiry is for wrong payment. While the charge framed against the applicant is for misuse of funds. Further, the allegation with regard to the charge relating to personal gain was held not proved in the enquiry. Therefore, the Tribunal, by relying upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in M.V.BIJLANI v. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS[1], held that serious charges could not have been enquired without framing proper charges, as the charge of wrong payment, based on which the punishment orders have been issued, was not framed against the applicant, allowed the O.A setting aside the punishment order, dated 08.01.2007 and the consequential order of the Government dated 26.05.2007. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, we are not inclined to interfere with the impugned order passed by the Tribunal. However, this order does not preclude the Government from initiating any disciplinary enquiry and framing appropriate charge sheet against the respondent, if so desired. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. GHULAM MOHAMMED, J G.BHAVANI PRASAD, J Date: 31.10.2008 va [1] 2006 (3) SLR 105