IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE P.SWAROOP REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 28550 of 2008 Between: 1 The Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep.by its Principal; Secretary to Government Revenue (Vig.III) Department Secretariat, hyderabad 2 The Chief Commissioner of Land Administration Government of Andhra Pradesh, Nampally,Hyderabad ..... PETITIONERS AND G.V.Subrahmanyam, M.R.O., (Retired) Prakasam District, R/o.16/88C college Road,Nandikotkur Kurnool 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 APAdmn.Tribunal, Hyderabad passed in OA.No.1974/2008 dated 11.9.2008 as being erroneous illegal, and unreasonable and quash the same. Counsel for the Petitioners: GP FOR SERVICES II Counsel for the Respondent: . The Court made the following ORDER: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V. ESWARAIAH AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P. SWAROOP REDDY Writ Petition No.28550 of 2008 ORDER: (Per Sri V. Eswaraiah, J) Heard both the learned counsel. The respondent herein retired as Mandal Revenue Officer on 31.03.2004. On the ground that he committed certain irregularities during the year 1994, disciplinary proceedings were initiated by the Government in Memo No.63497/Ser.V(1)/94, dated 10.08.1998, and thereafter, the matter was referred to the Commissioner of Inquiries, who submitted a report, dated 08.09.2005. Basing on the said report, two years thereafter, a show-cause notice in Memo No.6135/Vig.III (1)/2001-22, dated 15.05.2007, was issued by the Government calling upon the respondent to submit his explanation within 15 days as to why the proposed punishment of 25% cut in pension permanently should not be imposed on him for the irregularities committed by him, in default, further action will be taken up basing on the material available. It is stated that the respondent submitted his explanation on 10.06.2007 and as no orders are passed, he filed O.A.No.1974 of 2008 on the file of the A.P. Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad (for short ‘the Tribunal’) seeking a declaration that the action of the Government in not finalizing the disciplinary proceedings of an issue relating to 1994 till date as illegal, arbitrary, and violative of principles of natural justice. The Tribunal, after taking into consideration the material available on record, held that without issuing any charge memo as per APCS (CC&A) Rules, the disciplinary proceedings were initiated and, as such, the alleged enquiry can be treated as preliminary enquiry and therefore, basing upon the preliminary enquiry, no punishment can be imposed, that too, after long lapse 14 years from the date of the incident. Following the judgments of the Supreme Court in P.V. Mahadevan v. Md.T.N. Housing Board[1] and M.V. Bijlani v. Union of India[2] the Tribunal further held that as there is inordinate delay of about 14 years in initiation of disciplinary proceedings as per the Rules, imposition of punishment basing on the preliminary enquiry is illegal and the whole proceedings initiated pursuant to charge memo, dated 10.08.1998, are vitiated. Accordingly, by order, dated 11.09.2008, the Tribunal allowed the O.A., and directed the Government to release the pension and other pensionary benefits forthwith. Aggrieved by the said order of the Tribunal, dated 11.09.2008, the Government filed the present writ petition stating that the Commissioner of Inquiries conducted the enquiry and as the irregularities are held to be proved, for which, explanation was also submitted, it is for the disciplinary authority to consider all the contentions of the respondent and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. It is always open for the respondent to question the order to be passed, if he is so aggrieved. During the course of arguments, it is submitted by both the learned counsel that the writ petition itself can be disposed of at the interlocutory stage permitting the respondent to submit a fresh explanation in addition to the earlier explanation pursuant to the show-cause notice, dated 15.05.2007, and the Government may be directed to consider the same and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the respondent herein is permitted to submit a fresh explanation in addition to the earlier explanation submitted on 10.06.2007, within a period of one week from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On such explanation being submitted, the Government is directed to consider the same and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law dealing with all the contentions raised by the respondent in his explanation, within a period of four weeks thereafter. Accordingly, the order of the Tribunal impugned herein is modified and the writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. _________________ V. ESWARAIAH, J ______________________ P. SWAROOP REDDY, J Dt.25.06.2009 VGB [1] (2005) 6 SCC 636 [2] 2006 (3) SLR 105