THE HON’BLE SMT. JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH W.P.NO.3161 OF 2006 O R D E R (Per the Hon’ble Smt. Justice T.Meena Kumari) Heard both the counsel. 2. Aggrieved by the order dated 25.4.2005 passed by the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad in O.A.No.6493/2003, the Government filed the present writ petition. 3. The brief facts of the case are that the respondent herein while working in the office of the Chief Accounts Officer, Government Central Press, Hyderabad as Drawing and Disbursing Officer during the period from 6.9.1984 to 11.11.1984, allegations were made against him with regard to unauthorized transactions and accordingly charges were framed against him vide memo dated 20.6.1990 and he submitted his explanation on 30.6.1990 and on the same day on attaining the age of superannuation, he retired from service. By letter dated 17.9.1990 the matter was referred to the Government for taking necessary action under Rule 9 of A.P. Revised Pension Rules, 1980 and by G.O.Rt.No.2251dated 6.12.1999 the Government ordered regular enquiry and appointed one K.Jaganmohan Goud, the then Deputy Director, Office of the Director and Treasuries and Accounts, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad as Enquiry Officer. The Enquiry Officer submitted his report on 16.11.2000 and the respondent was issued with show cause notice dated 4.5.2001 and he submitted his explanation on 3.7.2001 and another show cause notice indicating punishment was issued on 9.9.2002 and the respondent gave his representation on 31.10.2002 and eventually G.O.Rt.No.1383 dated 17.5.2003 was issued awarding punishment of 50 per cent cut in pension permanently. Challenging the same, the respondent approached the Tribunal and by order dated 25.4.2005 the Tribunal holding that there was delay in concluding the enquiry proceedings, which caused prejudice to the respondent and as the delay was not properly explained, allowed the O.A. and set aside the impugned G.O. imposing punishment. Challenging the same, the Government filed the present writ petition. 4. In the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition it is stated that the respondent worked in the office of the Chief Accounts Officer, Government Central Press, Hyderabad as Drawing and Disbursing Officer for the period from 6.9.1984 to 11.11.1984 and he has taken charge of Government cash of Rs.1,00,269-36 as against the cash balance of Rs.5,90,769-36 ps on 6.9.1984 and he has not taken charge of non-government cash, but made transaction unauthorisedly for the said period. The respondent initially has taken leave for four months with effect from 12.11.1984 and left for America and thereafter, he continued his leave and reported to duty on 16.10.1989 and till then, he did not handover the charge of his post. As per the audit conducted in the month of June, 1985 for the period from 1.6.1984 to 22.5.1985 of the Accounts Branch, Government Central Press, Hyderabad an amount of Rs.27,361-67 was reported to have been paid in excess in non- government cash and the respondent has been made responsible, since the loss occurred during his tenure in the post of Drawing and Disbursing Officer. Since the respondent left for America and was not available till 16.10.1989, the audit recovery notice has not been issued to him. It is further stated that after availing the leave, the respondent reported to duty on 16.10.1989 and as such vide memo dated 8.12.1989 he was directed to make good the loss of Rs.27,361-67 immediately within 15 days from the receipt of the memo and the respondent submitted his explanation on 1.3.1990, but he did not show the accounts for the said loss. Hence vide memo dated 20.6.1990 charges were framed and the respondent submitted his explanation on 30.6.1990 and on the same day he retired from service, as he attained the age of superannuation. As the Government is competent to take further course of action under Rule 9 of A. P. Revised Pension Rules, 1980, the matter was referred to the Government. The case of the writ petitioners is that the respondent left the country without permission of the disciplinary authority. It is further stated that the brother of the respondent submitted a representation on 20.1.1992 to the disciplinary authority for release of the pensionary benefits of his brothers and the respondent also made correspondence on 31.8.1994 and 15.1.1995 from U.S.A. for release of the pensionary benefits though the charges are pending against him. As the respondent is not in the country and not available to the disciplinary authority, the respondent is solely responsible for the delay in finalization of the disciplinary proceedings. In the affidavit the writ petitioners further narrating the facts with regard to appointment of the enquiry officer and the conducting of the enquiry and submitting report, further stated that the enquiry officer issued a show cause notice to the respondent vide memo dated 4.5.2001 along with enquiry report and the respondent submitted his explanation on 3.7.2001 and the final show cause notice was issued vide memo dated 9.9.2002, but the same could not be served to the local address furnished by the respondent and hence the show cause notice was sent to the foreign address and he submitted his explanation from USA on 31.10.2002 and the said explanation was received on 13.11.2002. Therefore, the case of the writ petitioners is that the respondent was not residing in the India and he did not co-operate with the enquiry and hence he is solely responsible for the delay and, therefore, sought for setting aside the impugned order of the Tribunal. 5. The respondent filed counter in the form of vacate petition and reiterating the reasoning of the Tribunal and supporting the impugned order and further stating that the there was no delay on his part and that his going to USA has not resulted in protracting the enquiry proceedings and the delay occurred solely due to the laxity of the writ petitioners which has caused prejudice to him, sought for dismissal of the writ petition. 6. From the above material it could be seen that the respondent worked as Drawing and Disbursing Officer from 6.9.1984 to 11.11.1984 in the office of the Chief Accounts Officer, Government Central Press, Hyderabad and during the said period, on the allegation that he made unauthorized transactions, charge were framed against him on 20.6.1990 and he submitted his explanation on 30.6.1990 and he retired on the same day on attaining the age of superannuation and subsequently on a reference to the Government, Enquiry Officer was appointed vide G.O.Ms.No.2251 dated 6.12.1999 and he submitted his report and based on the same show cause notice was issued on 4.5.2001 and the respondent submitted his explanation on 3.7.2001 and final show cause notice indicating the punishment was issued on 9.9.2002 and the respondent submitted his representation and eventually impugned G.O.Rt.No.1383 dated 17.5.2003 was issued imposing fifty per cent cut in the pension. The Tribunal on the ground that though in the earlier O.A.No.6391/1992 it directed to conclude the enquiry within a period of three months, delay of nearly one and half decade had occurred and no convincing explanation is forth coming from the writ petitioners – Government, which prejudiced the cause of the respondent, allowed the O.A. and set aside the impugned order. The main ground on which the impugned G.O. was set aside was on account of delay in concluding the enquiry proceedings. 7. The allegations that were leveled against the respondent was during the period between 6.9.1984 to 11.11.1984. In the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition the case of the Government is that the respondent had initially taken leave for a period of four months with effect from 12.11.1984 and he left for America and thereafter, he continued his leave and reported to duty on 16.10.1989 and that he also did not handover the charge of his post. Therefore, as the respondent left for America and he did not handover the post till 16.10.1989, audit recovery notice has not been issued to the individual. From the material it could be seen that after his joining of duty on 16.10.1989, memo dated 8.12.1989 was issued and the respondent submitted his explanation on 1.3.1990. Further it is also alleged in the writ affidavit that after referring the matter to the Government and after appointment of the Enquiry Officer, again the respondent left the country without permission of the disciplinary authority. Thereafter, the brother of the respondent submitted representation and subsequently the respondent made correspondence from U.S.A. It is also stated that the Enquiry Offer issued notices to the respondent on 17.1.2000, 25.1.2000, 7.2.2000 and 23.3.2000 and they were returned un-served stating that the charged officer is not available and hence the substituted service by way of publication in G.P.Gazettee was made on 25.3.2000 and ultimately the enquiry officer submitted his report on 16.11.2000 and vide memo dated 4.5.2001 show cause notice was issued to the respondent along with enquiry report and he submitted his explanation on 3.7.2001 and final show cause notice was issued vide memo dated 9.9.2002 and this notice also met with the same fate and returned un-served and ultimately they were sent to U.S.A and again the respondent submitted his explanation on 31.10.2002 and eventually the G.O.Rt.No.1383 dated 17.5.2003 was issued imposing punishment of fifty percent cut in the pension. 8. From the above, though at the cost of repetition, it is clear that the period during which the allegations were leveled is between 6.9.1984 to 11.11.1984 and the respondent applied for immediately from the next day i.e., from 12.11.1984 initially for a period of four months and left for America and thereafter reported to duty on 16.10.1989 and he also did not handover the charge of the post till that day and hence the audit recovery notice has not been issued to the individual. Therefore, from the material on record, it could be seen that the Government has taken timely action, since after joining of the respondent on 16.10.1989, it issued notice on 8.12.1989 calling for his explanation and after receipt of the explanation on 1.3.1990 charged were framed and the same were served vide memo dated 20.6.1990 and the respondent also submitted his defence statement on 30.6.1990. As the Government is competent to take action on the charged officer even after retirement as per Rule 9 of A.P. Revised Pension Rules, 1980 the matter was referred to the Government vide letter of the Director of Treasures and accounts dated 17.9.1990 and within a reasonable time, the Government issued G.O.Rt.No.2251 dated 6.12.1999 of Finance and Planning (FW.Admn.I) Department appointing the Enquiry Officer and after complying with the principles of natural justice, he submitted his report on 16.11.2000 and from the affidavit filed in the support of the writ petition, the steps taken by the Enquiry Officer with regard to service of notice were clearly explained. From the material on record it further clearly establishes that the respondent left the country without permission of the disciplinary authority. 9. Further from a close analysis of the material on record it is clear that after the respondent reported to duty on 16.10.1989, the Department has followed the procedure and there was timely action and further the respondent left the country without permission of the disciplinary authority and the averments made in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition which are narrated above clearly goes to show that the respondent is solely responsible for the delay in concluding of the enquiry and he alone has to be blamed for the same and the above averments made in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition have properly explained the delay. The Tribunal lost sight of these factors before holding that the Government is responsible for the delay. Hence, in these facts and circumstances, the impugned judgment of the Tribunal is liable to be set aside. 10. For the foregoing reasons, the impugned order of the Tribunal is set aside and the writ petition is allowed. No costs. -------------------------------- T.MEENA KUMARI,J ------------------------------------ G.CHANDRAIAH,J AVS DATE:17.03.2008