THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU Writ Petition No.27524 of 2007 And Writ Petition No.767 of 2008 Dated : 08-02-2008 W.P.No.27524 of 2007 : Between: The Special Chief Secretary to Government and Chief Commissioner of Land Administrator, Government of A.P., Nampally Station Road, Hyderabad and another. … Petitioner/s And M.A. Gaffar Siddiqui, Deputy Tahsildar, Nawabpet Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. … Respondent/s W.P.No.767 of 2008 Between: The Special Chief Secretary to Government and Chief Commissioner of Land Administrator, Government of A.P., Nampally Station Road, Hyderabad and another. … Petitioner/s And M.A. Gaffar Siddiqui, Deputy Tahsildar, H.No.8-1-399/30, Big Jankinagar, Toli Chowki, Hyderabad and another. … Respondent/s THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU Writ Petition No.27524 of 2007 And Writ Petition No.767 of 2008 ORAL COMMON ORDER: (Per the Hon’ble Sri Justice D.S.R.Varma) Since both the writ petitions are inter-related, with the consent of both the parties, they are heard together and being disposed of finally by this common order. 2. Heard learned Government Pleader for Services-II, appearing on behalf of the petitioners (Government) in both the writ petitions as well as Sri P. Naveen Rao, learned counsel appearing for respondent-applicant. 3. Writ Petition No.27524 of 2007 is filed against the order, dated 29-07-2005, passed by the A.P. Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad (for brevity “the Tribunal”), allowing the application O.A.No.2244 of 2000 filed by the respondent seeking to set aside proceedings No.A3/6604/92, dated 31-10-1998, of the District Collector, Ranga Reddy District, Hyderabad, second petitioner herein; and proceedings No.Spl.X.2/4745/98, dated 06-12-1999, of the Special Chief Secretary to Government and Chief Commissioner of Land Administration, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad, first petitioner herein; while Writ Petition No.767 of 2008 is filed against the order, dated 06-06-2007, passed by the Tribunal, allowing the application O.A.7474 of 2006 filed filed by the respondent seeking to direct the petitioners herein to release three annual grade increments withheld for the years 2000 to 2002 to revise the pension already sanctioned by adding three annual grade increments and pay the arrears of amounts due and payable on account of release of increments and revision of pension with interest at 18 per cent per annum. 4. Insofar as W.P.No.27524 of 2007, the factual background, in brief, is that the respondent herein was charged for certain irregularities allegedly committed by him while working as Upper Division Revenue Inspector in the office of the Mandal Revenue Officer, Tandur. As many as six charges were framed regarding the issuance of ration cards, vide Charge Memo., dated 23-09-1993. After receiving the explanation from the respondent, a departmental enquiry had been conducted and the Enquiry Officer had submitted his report holding the charges proved. Basing on the said report, second petitioner, who is the disciplinary authority, through proceedings No.A3/6604/92, dated 31-10-1998, imposed the punishment of stoppage of three annual grade increments with cumulative effect and reduction of rank as Senior Assistant. On appeal by the respondent, first petitioner, who is the appellate authority, through proceedings No.Spl.X.2/4748/98, dated 06-12- 1999, reduced the punishment to that of stoppage of three annual grade increments with cumulative effect. Challenging the said orders, dated 31-10-1998 and 06-12-1999 of second and first petitioners, respectively, the respondent had approached the Tribunal by way of filing O.A.No.2244 of 2000. 5. The Tribunal, having considered the matter and the material available on record, by order, dated 29-07-2005, allowed the O.A., by setting aside the Charge Memo, dated 23-09-1993 and the consequential proceedings, dated 31-10-1998 and 06-12-1999 of second and first petitioners, respectively. Hence the present writ petition i.e., W.P.No.27524 of 2007. 6. The Tribunal allowed the O.A., on the ground that the mandatory provisions of Andhra Pradesh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1991 (for brevity “the Rules”) were not followed as the enquiry officer himself has framed the charges and that neither any witnesses were examined nor any documents were marked. The Tribunal also found fault with the orders of the disciplinary authority as well as the appellate authority on the ground that while imposing the major penalty, the requirement of conducting a full-fledged departmental enquiry is not fulfilled. 7. The Rules on this issue are clear to the effect that where a major penalty is to be imposed, it is imperative to conduct a detailed enquiry, as contemplated under Rule 20 of the Rules. While a minor penalty is to be imposed, the detailed enquiry need not be conducted. 8. In the instant case, having regard to the fact that the mandatory provisions of the Rules were violated, the Tribunal interfered with the orders passed by the disciplinary authority as well as the appellate authority. 9. No doubt, Rule 20 of the Rules postulates that a detailed enquiry has to be conducted while imposing major penalty. But, when the question of imposing minor penalty arises, suffice to impose the same after conducting an enquiry, not in such strict terms, as is to be done in cases of imposing major penalty. In other words, the enquiry being conducted can be summary in nature. 10. It is to be seen that in the present case, there are as many as six charges were framed against the respondent herein. A bare perusal of the said charges together with the explanation offered by the respondent and the finding of the enquiry officer would only reveal that the explanation offered to some of the charges is not satisfactory, to a naked eye. In such a case, as already pointed out, the petitioners, in the event of contemplating to impose the major penalty of reduction in rank and stoppage of three increments with cumulative effect or any other nature, ought to have conducted a further detailed enquiry. 11. From the explanation offered by the respondent, we are of the view, there is an implicit admission of the charges, though appear as denial, and the nature of the irregularities are also basically not acceptable to anybody, including the appointing authority. In such a case, the petitioners ought to have initiated enquiry in contemplation of imposing a minor penalty. 12. But, it is to be remembered that a regular departmental enquiry had been conducted and having accepted the report of the enquiry officer, the disciplinary authority had imposed the major penalty, as stated above. Therefore, it cannot be said that no enquiry had been conducted, at all. 13. The only lapse is that the method and the manner in which the enquiry had been conducted do not permit the disciplinary authority to impose the major penalty of lowering the rank and stoppage of three increments with cumulative effect. At best, it could and should have been only stoppage of three increments without cumulative effect, which amounts to imposing a minor penalty. 14. Had the disciplinary authority or the appellate authority imposed the punishment of stoppage of three increments without cumulative effect, such punishment being minor in nature, would have been commensurate with the irregularity committed. In other words, the nature of the enquiry and the punishment imposed would be matching with each other. 15. Furthermore, as already noticed, from a bare reading of the explanation offered by the respondent, the same cannot be satisfactory to anyone, including the disciplinary authority. It gives such an impression that there was something more than what actually an eye meets. In such circumstances, though no detailed enquiry was actually necessary, by any stretch of imagination, the punishment cannot be more than a minor punishment. When a major punishment is to be imposed, a further detailed enquiry, as observed by the Tribunal also, could and should have been conducted. 16. Now, after a long lapse of time, for the Charge Memo issued in the year 1993, the Tribunal rendered the judgment in the year 2005, setting aside the said Charge Memo and the consequential proceedings of the disciplinary authority as well as the appellate authority, however, with a liberty to conduct fresh enquiry, by which time the charged officer i.e., the respondent herein was already retired from service. Therefore, we are of the view that the liberty given by the Tribunal to conduct a fresh enquiry becomes otiose and the same is a formal and futile exercise, with no desired results. 17. In such a rare and peculiar circumstances, we are of the view that it is suffice to remove the offending part or mis-matching part of the punishment i.e., stoppage of three increments with cumulative effect, which makes the punishment a major penalty. If the said cumulative effect is removed, we are of the considered view that the method and manner in which the enquiry was conducted and the punishment imposed would be matching with each other. (emphasis supplied by us) 18. After all, the method and manner in which the Department conducted the enquiry cannot totally be prohibited, on the other hand, such enquiry should end in awarding a minor penalty only. 19. For the foregoing, in the rare and peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case, in order to meet the ends of justice and also to give a quietus to the litigation initiated by the respondent, we are of the view that it is appropriate to dispose of the writ petition by setting aside the impugned order, dated 29-07- 2005, passed by the Tribunal in O.A.No.2244 of 2000, and the punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority in proceedings dated, 31-10-1998, as partly confirmed by the appellate authority in proceedings, dated 06-12-1999, is to be modified to the effect that the respondent (applicant) shall be imposed with the punishment of stoppage of three increments without cumulative effect only. 20. Coming to Writ Petition No.767 of 2008, the order impugned in this writ petition i.e., order, dated 06-06-2007, in O.A.No.7474 of 2006, was passed by the Tribunal pursuant to its order, dated 29-07-2005, in O.A.No.2244 of 2000, thereby directing the petitioners herein (respondents therein) to release three annual grade increments, which were stopped, with a further direction to revise the pension of the respondent (applicant) consequent on release of the increments. 21. In view of the order passed in W.P.No.27524 of 2007, we feel it appropriate to dispose of the present writ petition i.e., W.P.No.767 of 2008, modifying the direction issued by the Tribunal through the impugned order, dated 06-06-2007, in O.A.No.7474 of 2006, to the effect that the petitioners herein shall release the revised pension of first respondent along with arrears, if any, within a period of 4 (four) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 22. In the result, with the above observations and directions, both the writ petitions are disposed of, at the stage of admission. There shall be no order as to costs. __________________________ JUSTICE D.S.R. VARMA _________________________ JUSTICE K.C. BHANU 08-02-2008. Msr. THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU Writ Petition No.27524 of 2007 And Writ Petition No.767 of 2008 08-02-2008 (Msr)