THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR WRIT PETITION No.23390 of 2009 ORDER: (per the Hon’ble Sri Justice Vilas V. Afzulpurkar) The applicant in O.A.No.6949 of 2004 before the A.P.Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad, has filed this Writ of Mandamus against the impugned proceedings of the disciplinary authority imposing punishment and further orders passed thereon by the appellate authority and the Government including the order of the Tribunal, dated 18-09-2009, dismissing O.A.No.6949 of 2004. We are at loss to appreciate as to how a Writ of Mandamus lies when this court exercises certiorari jurisdiction against the order of the Tribunal. However, we have allowed the learned counsel for the petitioner to make his submissions on merits and this writ petition is being disposed of exercising our certiorari jurisdiction. The petitioner is working as Superintendent and with regard to the irregularities committed by her in implementing Food for Work Programme, while she was working as in-charge MPDO, MP, Mahadevpur, a charge memo, dated 27-03-2002, was issued to her framing the following charge:- “Smt.R.Padmavathi, Superintendent, has not taken proper steps under office administration, when she was working as I/C MPDO, MP, Mahadevpur. As a result the administration is uncontrolled and thereby the other authorities like VDO-I, President and Junior Assistant at MLS. Point have deviated the guidelines of FFWP and committed irregularities in issuing coupons and rice. Coupons have been issued by the different officers i.e., MPDO VDO-I and President contrary to the guidelines of FFWP. Some of the coupons issued have not mentioned the particulars of village name, person name during the period of I/C. MPDO. She has given a scope of misutilization of rice by the unauthorised person. (200) quintals of rice advancely issued by her to work road from Mahadevpur Devala colony to Edapally village though the work was not included in the Jan’2002 progress reports and not recorded in the M.B. She has given opportunity for mis-utilisation of rice under FFWP ignoring the names prescribed.” The said charge was split into three parts during domestic enquiry. Domestic enquiry was conducted by the District Level Enquiry Officer under Food for Work Programme, who is also the Enquiry Officer under CCCA Rules. In the enquiry report, dated 05-02-2003, the Enquiry Officer found that out of three sub-charges, in which original charge No.1 was split, the petitioner is not guilty of sub- charge No.1. However, under Sub-charge No.2, it was found that the petitioner had issued coupons without verification and thereby 100 quintals of rice were permitted under the coupons, dated 23-11-2001, without any particulars. The said charge was held to be proved. Further, sub-charge No.3 relating to 200 quintals of rice, it was found that she had issued coupons without verifying whether the roadwork against which the same was issued is recorded in the measurement book and that she had also issued antedated sanctioned orders, rice coupons, technical sanction etc. The petitioner, therefore, was held guilty of the said charge No.3 also. Basing on the aforesaid report of the Enquiry Officer, the disciplinary authority vide its proceedings No.A5/A7/252/20, dated 23- 09-2003, considered the representation made by the petitioner against the said Enquiry report and found that the petitioner is guilty of sub- charge Nos.2 and 3 and imposed punishment of withdrawal of two annual grade increments with cumulative effect, apart from recovering the cost of rice of 300 quintals @ Rs.5.65 per kg. It is further directed that the cost of rice shall be recovered from the salary of the petitioner and the entire period of suspension shall be treated as leave to which she is eligible. Questioning the said order, the petitioner filed appeal before the 3rd respondent and the 3rd respondent vide Memo No.14645/CPR/11/2003, dated 23-11-2004, rejected the said appeal. The petitioner also filed further appeal before the Government-4th respondent, which was also rejected by Memo No.164264/Estt.VII.2/2004, dated 20-01-2009. Questioning the aforesaid orders of the disciplinary authority and the appellate authorities, the petitioner filed the present O.A. before the Tribunal. The Tribunal had considered the entire matter and after examining the counter filed by the respondents, the Tribunal noted that there is no illegality or irregularity in conducting the enquiry as alleged by the petitioner and except stating that she is a lady and that she has no experience of the said post, no other circumstances warrants interference of the order of the disciplinary authority and the appellate authorities. The Tribunal, therefore, considered the entire matter and did not find any illegality or irregularity either in the procedural or factual aspects considered by the disciplinary authority and dismissed the said O.A. In the present writ petition, the learned counsel for the petitioner has urged the self same contentions, which are urged before the Tribunal. As this court is not an appellate authority, the factual aspects, which are sought to be urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner, cannot be considered in the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. We are unable to discern any illegality or infirmity or perversity in the orders impugned. Consequently, we are of the view that the writ petition is devoid of any merit and the same is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ________________ V.ESWARAIAH, J ________________________ VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J Dated: 02-11-2009 Prv