IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE THIRD DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE SMT JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH WRIT PETITION NO : 26620 of 2007 Between: P.J. Srinivasa Rao, s/o. Late P. Isaac, G.R.P. Sub-Division no. II, (I &CAD) Department, Maddipadu, Prakasam District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Executive Engineer, K.C. Canal Division, Nandyal, Kurnool Post & District. 2 The Executive Engineer, Investigation Division, Cumbum, Prakasam District. .....RESPONDENT(S) 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, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the Judgment of the Hon'ble AP Administrative Tribunal in OA No. 8581 of 2002 dated 10-8-2007 is contrary to law and set aside the same and consequently set aside the Memo No. AB/A4/723M, dated 27-8-2002 of the 1st respondent and pass Counsel for the Petitioner : MR.G.TUHIN KUMAR Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR SERVICES I The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE T. MEENA KUMARI AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. CHANDRAIAH WRIT PETITION No.26620 of 2007 ORDER: (per Smt. T.Meena Kumari,J) In this writ petition, the petitioner seeks for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus to declare the judgment of the A.P. Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad rendered in O.A. No. 8581 of 2002, dated 10.8.2007 as contrary to law and to set aside the same. He also sought for a consequential direction to set aside the memo No. AB/A4/723M, dated 27.8.2002 of the first respondent and to pass such other order or further orders. The petitioner herein is working as a Deputy Executive Engineer at Nandyal. At that time, it appears, some temporary advances were given to the petitioner with regard to payment of bills pertaining to “Neeru-Meeru programme. While so, the petitioner was relieved in the month of June 2001 from the said place and it seems he has not handed over the vouchers or cash with regard to the aforesaid advance to his successor Sri K. Amarnath, Deputy Executive Engineer. Therefore, the 1st respondent sought to recover the said amount from the petitioner. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner earlier filed O.A. No. 2243 of 2002 before the Tribunal. On o 1.4.2002, the Tribunal disposed of the said O.A. with a direction to the petitioner to furnish the details of the amounts incurred and the expenditure out of the advance given by the Executive Engineer within two weeks from that date. It further directed that if any amount has been advanced by the petitioner to any responsible Subordinate of the petitioner and if the petitioner produces necessary proof in token of having advanced the said amount, the Executive Engineer may obtain necessary details of the expenditure from the concerned Subordinate Officer and the 1st respondent was directed to pass appropriate orders basing on the particulars that would be furnished by the petitioner. Till such time, it directed that no recovery shall be made. Pursuant to the aforesaid order of the tribunal, the petitioner submitted his detailed representation to the first respondent. The first respondent, not being satisfied with the explanation offered by the petitioner, issued the impugned proceedings dated 27.8.2002 seeking to recover the said amount. Assailing the same, petitioner again filed O.A. No. 8581 of 2002 before the Tribunal. The Tribunal, by the order impugned in this writ petition, dismissed the said O.A. Hence, the present writ petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that as per the direction of the Tribunal in O.A. No. 2243 of 2002, he had submitted a detailed representation to the first respondent and the 1st respondent without considering the same, erroneously ordered for recovery of the said amount. He further submitted that the Tribunal also did not consider the matter in proper perspective and erroneously dismissed the O.A. He, therefore, prayed that the writ petition be allowed and the impugned order be set aside. On the other hand, learned Government Pleader for Services-I has supported the impugned order and prayed that the writ petition be dismissed. Before the Tribunal, the respondents filed counter affidavit stating that the petitioner has taken advances of an amount of Rs. 2,11,000/- during March, 2000 while he was working as Deputy Executive Engineer at KCC Sub-division, Allagadda and he had been subsequently relieved from the said place on 20.6.2001. Respondents allege that even though the petitioner worked for more than a year at the said place, he did not furnish the required particulars. It is also stated that one T. Obaiah, Asst. Engineer had already furnished the required particulars relating to the amount spent by him. However, the petitioner only has not furnished the details of the amounts taken by him and is delaying the same. It is further stated that the petitioner himself through his letters dated 10.2.2000 and 14.7.2000 requested the respondents to open the advances for payment of amount of desalting works and as per his request only, the advances were paid to him. It is further stated that the amounts given to the petitioner were only advances given for execution of works, but not contingencies; that these advances need to be adjusted by way of detailed bills and vouchers. Since the amounts entrusted to the petitioner were not accounted for by him, the recovery orders had been issued. It is further stated that when the petitioner failed to furnish the details of the vouchers paid to the proclaim owner, photographer, carpenter and painters etc, the impugned recovery proceedings dated 27.8.2002 were issued. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order. It is seen from the record that on an earlier occasion when recovery proceedings were initiated against the petitioner, petitioner approached the Tribunal by way of filing O.A. No. 2243 of 2002. The said O.A. was disposed of by the Tribunal with a direction to the petitioner to furnish the details of the amounts incurred by him. Pursuant to the said order of the Tribunal, the petitioner only furnished the acknowledgments/receipts of the subordinate staff in respect of the amounts taken by him, but, however, he did not furnish the other supporting details such as vouchers and the details of the work. That apart, though the petitioner furnished the details of the persons to whom the amounts were given as advance, but, however, those persons have denied the receipt of the said amounts. In the circumstances, the acknowledgments/receipts, which were furnished by the petitioner cannot in any way held to be sufficient proof of rendering the accounts. Since the petitioner failed to furnish the full details of the amounts taken by him, the 1st respondent was justified in issuing the impugned recovery proceedings dated 27.8.2002. The Tribunal, taking the aforesaid aspects into consideration rightly declined to interfere with the impugned recovery proceedings and dismissed the O.A. We, therefore, do not find any illegality or irregularity in the order of the Tribunal warranting interference. The writ petition is devoid of merits and it is accordingly dismissed. No costs. ___________________ T. MEENA KUMARI,J DATE: 3rd March, 2008 __________________ G. CHANDRAIAH,J pnb