IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE EIGHTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION Nos : 25382 and 26658 of 2008 W.P.No.25382 of 2008 Between: The Director, A.P. Government Text Book Press, Mint Compound, Hyderabad. ..... PETITIONER AND Sri.K.Mohan Babu Rao, A.P. Government Text Book Press, Hyderabad. .....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 an appropriate Writ or direction more particularly in the nature of "Writ of Certiorari" calling for the records relating to and connected with the orders dated 7-9-2007 in O.A.No.6380 of 2005 on the file of the Hon'ble A.P. Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad and to quash the same by holding as erroneous and contrary to law. Counsel for the Petitioner:GP FOR SERVICES I Counsel for the Respondent: None appeared. WRIT PETITION NO : 26658 of 2008 Between: The Director A.P. Government Text Book Press Mint Compound, Hyderabad. ..... PETITIONER AND K. Mohan Babu Rao A.P. Govt. Text Book Press Hyderabad. .....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 an appropriate Writ or direction more particularly in the nature of "Writ of Certiorari" calling for the records relating to and connected with the orders dated 26-3-2008 in O.A.No. 2089/2008 on the file of the Hon'ble A.P. Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad and to quash or set aside the same by holding as erroneous and contrary to law. Counsel for the Petitioner:GP FOR SERVICES I Counsel for the Respondent : None appeared. COMMON ORDER :(Per GM, J) Since common point is involved in both the writ petitions and the parties are also common, they are being disposed of by this common order. 2. W.P.Nos.25382 and 26658 of 2008 are filed seeking a writ of certiorari challenging the orders dated 07.09.2007 and 26.03.2008 passed in O.A.Nos.6380 of 2005 and 2089 of 2008 respectively on the file of the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad (for short ‘the Tribunal’). 3. The respondent-applicant, while working as Superintendent (Former Cashier), Andhra Pradesh Government Text Book Press, Hyderabad, was placed under suspension vide proceedings dated 31.05.1999 on the allegation that he committed certain cash irregularities. Charges were framed against him vide proceedings dated 26.07.1999. Thereafter, he submitted an explanation, dated 18.08.1999, denying the charges framed against him. Dissatisfied with the said explanation, the petitioner department proceeded with the detailed enquiry. While so, the respondent filed O.A.No.8281 of 2000 before the Tribunal seeking suspension of the said order of suspension and the same came to be disposed of on 20.12.2000 directing the petitioner to pass final orders on the enquiry report, within four weeks from the date of receipt of that order. In pursuance of the directions issued by the Tribunal, the suspension of the respondent was reviewed vide proceedings dated 23.04.2001 pending finalization of disciplinary enquiry. After completion of the enquiry, the respondent was issued with a show cause notice dated 13.09.2004 enclosing a copy of the enquiry report. In response to the same, he submitted reply on 11.10.2004. Again, the petitioner issued a revised show cause notice dated 24.05.2005 to the respondent, who in turn, gave reply on 16.06.2005. After examining the said replies, the petitioner vide proceedings dated 28.09.2005 imposed on the respondent penalty of stoppage of one annual grade increment without cumulative effect for one year besides recovery of net shortage amount of Rs.1,96,665-26ps from his salary in equal instalments not exceeding the maximum limit prescribed as per the rules in force. Aggrieved by the same, the respondent filed O.A.No.6380 of 2005, which was allowed on 07.09.2007. Questioning the said order, the petitioner filed W.P.No.25382 of 2008. 4. Subsequent to disposal of O.A.No.6380 of 2005, the respondent filed O.A.No.2089 of 2008 before the Tribunal seeking promotion to the post of Assistant Director on par with his junior Sri G. Chandra Sekhar Rao, for regularization of suspension period and for release of increments due to him. In the said O.A., an interim relief was granted directing the petitioner herein to consider the case of the respondent for promotion to the post of Assistant Director on par with his junior Sri G. Chandra Sekhar Rao in view of allowing of O.A.No.6380 of 2005 on 07.09.2007, by conducting a review DPC, if necessary, for effecting promotion to the post of Assistant Director, pending further orders, against which, the petitioner filed W.P.No.26658 of 2008. 5. Heard the learned Government Pleader for Services-I and the learned counsel for the respondent. 6. The learned Government Pleader for Services-I contended that the respondent filed O.A.NO.6380 of 2005 without availing the alternative remedy of appeal as prescribed under Rule 34 of Andhra Pradesh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1991 (For short ‘the Rules’). In support of his contention, the learned Government Pleader relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in S.S.RATHORE v. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH[1], wherein it was held as under: “In several States the Conduct Rules for Government servants require the administrative remedies to be exhausted before the disciplinary orders can be challenged in Court. Section 20(1) of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, provides: “20(1) A Tribunal shall not ordinarily admit an application unless it is satisfied that the applicant had availed of all the remedies available to him under the relevant service rules as to redressal of grievances.” The Rules relating to disciplinary proceedings do provide for an appeal against the orders of punishment imposed on public servants. Some Rules provide even a second appeal or a revision. The purport of Section 20 of the Administrative Tribunals Act is to give effect to the Disciplinary Rules and the exhaustion of the remedies available thereunder is a condition precedent to maintaining of claims under the Administrative Tribunals Act. Administrative Tribunals have been set up for Government servants of the Centre and several States have already set up such Tribunals under the Act for the employees of the respective States. The law is soon going to get crystallised on the line laid down under Section 20 of the Administrative Tribunals Act. He further contended that the respondent has to avail the alternative remedy of appeal, which is a condition precedent and that unless that condition is fulfilled, the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to entertain the O.A. He further contended that the Tribunal ought not to have allowed the O.A. only on the ground that the petitioner has taken more than six years to conclude the disciplinary proceedings after the report of the House Committee. 7. The respondent filed counter-affidavit. Reiterating the averments mentioned therein, the learned counsel for the respondent contended that the alternative remedy of appeal under Rule 34 of the Rules, as contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner at this belated stage, is misconceived. He further contended that the Tribunal has rightly presumed that the delay in initiation, conclusion of disciplinary proceedings and imposition of penalty on the respondent after a lapse of 16 years for the alleged misconduct, which pertains to 1988, caused prejudice to him and therefore, the impugned orders are just and reasonable. The learned counsel for the respondent invited our attention to a Division Bench judgment of this Court in K. NATARAJAN v. STATION COMMANDER AIR FORCE STATION, HYDERABAD[2], wherein it was held as under: “The parameters for exercise of the High Court’s power to issue a writ of certiorari are also well defined. A writ, order or direction can be issued for correcting errors of jurisdiction Committed by inferior Courts or Tribunals or quasi-judicial authorities. A writ can also be issued where in exercise of jurisdiction conferred on it, the Court or the Tribunal or quasi- judicial authority acts illegally or improperly, i.e., it decides a question without giving an opportunity of hearing to the party affected by the order or where the procedure adopted by it is opposed to the principles of natural justice. However, it must be remembered that the jurisdiction of the High Court to issue a writ of certiorari is supervisory in nature and not appellate one. This necessarily means that the finding of fact reached by the inferior Court, Tribunal, etc., as a result of the appreciation of evidence, cannot be reopened or questioned in writ proceedings except when the judgment, order or award suffers from an error of law apparent on the face of the record. An error of law is one which can be discovered on a bare reading of the judgment, order or award under challenge along with the documents which have been relied upon by the inferior Court, Tribunal or quasi-judicial authority. An error, the discovery of which is possible only after a detailed scrutiny of the evidence produced by the parties and lengthy debate at the bar cannot be regarded as an error of law for the purpose of a writ of certiorari. A finding of fact recorded by an inferior Court or Tribunal or quasi-judicial authority can be corrected only if it is shown that in recording the said finding, the Court etc., had erroneously admitted inadmissible evidence and the same has influenced the impugned finding. Similarly, a finding of fact based on no evidence would be regarded as error of law which can be corrected by issuing a writ of certiorari. However, sufficiency or adequacy of the evidence relied upon by the inferior Court or Tribunal or quasi-judicial authority cannot be gone into by the High Court while considering the prayer for issue of a writ of certiorari. Likewise, mere possibility of forming a different opinion on re-appreciation of evidence produced by the parties is not sufficient for issue of a writ of certiorari.” With regard to the contention of the learned Government Pleader that the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to entertain the O.A., since the respondent has an effective alternative remedy of appeal, the learned counsel for the respondent rightly submitted that there is no embargo on the part of the Tribunal to entertain the O.A. filed by the respondent as it vests with the power to deal with the same. 8. Today, when the matter came up for hearing, the respondent submitted an affidavit before this Court and the same is placed on record. In the said affidavit, he stated that though the period, which he suffered with the penalty of stoppage of one annual grade increment without cumulative effect, was ended by 09.10.2006, his suspension period from 31.05.1999 to 23.04.2001 has not been regularized by the petitioner and he was overlooked for promotion to the post of Assistant Director because of pendency of the disciplinary proceedings. Therefore, he seeks directions of this Court to the petitioner to regularize his suspension period by treating it as on leave and as he has to be retired from service in July, 2010 on attaining the age of superannuation, he may be considered for promotion even in the subsequent vacancy that arose on 30.06.2008. 9. Admittedly, on 28.09.2005, the penalty of stoppage of one annual grade increment without cumulative effect for one year besides recovery of net shortage amount of Rs.1,96,665-26 from his salary in equal instalments was imposed on the respondent. The respondent himself stated in his affidavit that the period, which he suffered the penalty imposed on him, was already ended. 10. Having regard to the fact that the respondent suffered the penalty imposed on him by the petitioner was ended and in view of the request made by the respondent for consideration of his case for promotion by treating his suspension period as leave, we deem it appropriate to direct the petitioner to consider the case of the respondent for promotion in the vacancy arose on 30.06.2008 as per the Rules by treating his suspension period from 31.05.1999 to 23.04.2001 as leave. Accordingly, both the Writ Petitions are disposed of. No costs. ______________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J __________________________ B. SESHASAYANA REDDY, J Date:08.12.2008 sj [1]AIR 1990 SUPREME COURT 10 [2] 2007(6) ALD 122 (DB)