THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED and THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G.BHAVANI PRASAD W.P.No.10169 of 2010 ORDER: (Per Sri Justice Ghulam Mohammed, J) This writ petition is filed assailing the order dated 20.11.2009 passed by the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad (for short ‘the Tribunal’) allowing O.A.No.1520 of 2006 filed by the first respondent challenging the proceedings dated 04.09.1997 and 11.03.2005 issued by the 1st and 2nd petitioners respectively. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the first respondent, while working as Senior Assistant in T.G.P.Circle, Kadapa, applied for House Building Advance for a sum of Rs.1,25,000/- and an amount of Rs.25,000/- was sanctioned vide proceedings, dated 20.02.1989 and instalments were being deducted from his salary. While working as Divisional Accounts Officer (Works), Grade-II, he again applied for House Building Advance and an amount of Rs.1,25,000/- was sanctioned to him. While the matter stood thus, the first petitioner issued memo dated 03.03.1997 to the first respondent calling for his explanation as to why he has applied for the House Building Advance when he had already been sanctioned House Building Advance of Rs.25,000/-. Subsequently, the first petitioner issued proceedings, dated 04.09.1997, imposing the punishment of stoppage of three annual grade increments with cumulative effect with consequential effect on his pension permanently, besides recovery of outstanding House Building Advance in three instalments together with penal interest. At a later point of time, the first respondent made a representation to the second petitioner seeking to revise the said order duly sanctioning his three annual increments due to him with effect from September, 1997 onwards and also for pension benefits, but the same was rejected vide proceedings, dated 11.03.2005. Challenging both the said proceedings, the petitioner filed the above said O.A. before the Tribunal, which in turn allowed the same. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners filed the present writ petition. 3. Heard the learned Government Pleader for Services-II and perused the material on record. 4. Learned Government Pleader for Services-II vehemently contended that as the punishment was imposed on the first respondent in the year 1997, he is not liable to question the same in 2006 i.e., after 9 years and therefore, his claim is barred by limitation and that the Tribunal has committed error in setting aside the proceedings. He submitted that the entire House Building Advance along with interest was recovered from the first respondent. 5. From a perusal of the order impugned, it is clear that the Tribunal has called for, verified the original records and observed that no charge memo has been issued subsequent to the proceedings dated 03.03.1997 and no enquiry, as contemplated under the Andhra Pradesh Civil Services (CCA) Rules, 1963, has been initiated against the first respondent before imposing such a major punishment and accordingly, set aside the proceedings, dated 04.09.1997 and 11.03.2005. 6. In view of the said finding of the Tribunal and the submission of the learned Government Pleader that the entire House Building Advance along with interest had already been recovered from the first respondent, there is no error apparent on the part of the Tribunal in setting aside the said proceedings vide order impugned. 7. The writ petition fails, and is accordingly, dismissed. No order as to costs. _____________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED,J ____________________ G.BHAVANI PRASAD, J Date:29.04.2010. sj