IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAYOF 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 : 13792 of 2008 Between: 1 Union of India, rep. by the Secretary, Railway Board, Rail Bhavan, New Delhi. 2 The General Manager, South Central Railway, Railnilayam, Secunderabad. ..... PETITIONER(S) AND T P V S Sekhara Rao, Chief Personnel Officer (IR), IV Floor, Railnilayam, South Central Railway, Secunderabad. .....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 pass an order or direction more particularly in nature of certiorari calling for the records pertaining to judgment in O.A.No.306 of 2004 dated 08.10.2008 on the file of Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad, and quash the same as being illegal and against the principles of natural justice. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.P.BHASKAR Counsel for the Respondent No.: MR.G.SANYASI RAO The Court made the following : ORDER: (Per Sri V.Eswaraiah, J.) The Union of India represented by the Secretary, Railway Board, Rail Bhavan, New Delhi and the General Manager, South Central Railway, Rail Nilayam, Secunderabad, are the writ petitioners. The respondent while working as Senior Divisional Personnel Officer, Hyderabad Division, South Central Railway, Secunderabad, conducted a selection for the recruitment of Group-D posts during the year 2000-2001 against Scouts and Guide quota and with regard to certain irregularities said to have been committed in that selection process, a charge sheet was issued and enquiry was conducted and the disciplinary authority vide order dated 21.2.2003 imposed a penalty of withholding of annual increment due on 1.7.2003 raising his pay from 17,100/- to 17.500/- in the scale of pay of Rs.14,300 – 18,300 for a period of one year without cumulative effect. Aggrieved by the said order, the respondent preferred an appeal to the President of India, who is the appellate authority in the instant case. The President of India for disposing of the appeal as per the procedure prescribed obtained the opinion of Union Public Service Commission before arriving at a decision with regard to the punishment and decision of the appeal and, accordingly, in the instant matter, the Union Public Service Commission vide F.3/249/03-S.1, dated 16.12.2003, gave its finding to the appellate authority and the appellate authority having considered the opinion rendered by Union Public Service Commission rejected the appeal being devoid of merits. Aggrieved by the same, the respondent filed O.A.No.306 of 2004 on the file of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench, Hyderabad. The Central Administrative Tribunal by order dated 8.10.2007 disposed of the said O.A. on the ground that the appellate authority has not considered all the contentions raised by the respondent in the appeal grounds and accordingly remanded back to the appellate authority with a direction to dispose of the appeal after considering all the contentions raised by the applicant/respondent in the grounds of appeal dated 30.3.2003 by passing reasoned speaking order. Aggrieved by the said order, this writ petition has been filed. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the Union Public Service Commission has discussed all the contentions raised in the appeal and submitted remarks stating that there are no merits in the appeal filed by the respondent and the penalty imposed is just and legal. We have heard both the learned counsel appearing for the parties. A perusal of the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal in O.A.No.306 of 2004 goes to show that the Tribunal did not consider the contentions of the Union Public Service Commission forwarded by it to the Ministry of Railways which was placed before the President of India and based on the advice of the Union Public Service Commission the appeal was considered and dismissed. It is further stated that the President need not again refer to all the contentions that have been dealt with and considered by the Union Public Service Commission with reference to the grounds of appeal. Admittedly, the Tribunal did not consider the advise of the Union Public Service Commission as the President of India is under legal requirement to get the advice of the Union Public Service Commission. Therefore, we are of the opinion that it cannot be said that the President of India has not given any reasons and whether the reasons furnished by the Union Public Service Commission are legal or not. It is for the Tribunal to consider and resolve the controversy. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, as both the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties agree for setting aside the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal in O.A.No.306 of 2004 and remand the matter to the Tribunal so as to enable it to consider the matter afresh keeping in view of the advice furnished by the Union Public Service Commission. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 8.10.2007 in O.A.No.306 of 2004 is set aside and the matter is remitted to the Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench, Hyderabad, to consider the matter afresh keeping in view of the advice furnished by the Union Public Service Commission and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law after hearing both the parties. There shall be no order as to costs. _________________ V.ESWARAIAH, J. _________________ P.SWAROOP REDDY, J. 11.6.2009 kpr