IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU WRIT PETITION NO : 21974 of 2006 Between: 1 The Commissioner & Director of Survey, & Land Records, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad. 2 The Regional Joint Director of Survey & Land Records, Kakinada, East Godavari District. 3 The Assistant Director, Survey & Land Records, Machilipatnam, Krishna District. 4 The Joint Collector, Machilipatnam, Krishna District. ..... PETITIONER(S) AND M. Nagulu Meera, S/o. M. Subbaiah, (under termination) R/o. 10/194, Balaramunipeta, Machilipatnam, Krishna 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 an appropriate 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 A.P. Administrative Tribunal passed in OA No. 102/2004, dated 7-2-2006 as being erroneous, illegal and unreasonable and quash the same and pass such other order or orders as deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the cases. Counsel for the Petitioner:GP FOR SERVICES II Counsel for the Respondent No.: . The Court made the following : HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU Writ Petition No.21974 of 2008 ORDER: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice Ghulam Mohammed) The petitioners seeks a writ of certiorari to quash the order dated 7-2-2006 in O.A.No.102 of 2004 on the file of Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal at Hyderabad. 2. The respondent - applicant was initially appointed as Chainman on daily wage basis in the Office of the Special Tahsildar, Land Acquisition, Soda Ash Plant, Machilipatnam vide proceedings dated 11-3-1986 and his services were terminated on 7-1-1988 in view of disbandment of the said office. Subsequently, the applicant was appointed again as Chainman on 4-2-1988 and posted in the existing vacancy in the office of Mandal Revenue Officer, Gudur. On verification, it was found that the transfer certificate produced by the applicant is a bogus one and the Head Master of the school concerned also stated to the same effect and thus he was not having requisite educational qualification to hold the post. Thereafter, the charge-memo was issued vide proceedings dated 29-11-2001 and the applicant submitted his explanation wherein he admitted the mistake and requested to drop the proceedings. After the completion of regular enquiry and the final report stating the charge as proved, the show cause notice was issued to the applicant calling for explanation as to why the punishment of removal should not be imposed on him. The disciplinary authority terminated the applicant from service vide proceedings dated 08-2-2003. In appeal, the appellate authority upheld the termination, against which the applicant preferred O.A.No.102 of 2004, which was allowed vide order dated 7- 2-2006 on the ground that in similar circumstances, minor punishments were imposed on two persons viz., A.Nagaraju and S.Sudhakar Babji. Hence, this writ petition by official respondents. 3. We have heard counsel on either side and perused the impugned order. 4. Learned counsel for the respondent – applicant has submitted that the case of the respondent may be considered in the light of the observations made by a Division Bench of this Court in Writ Petition No.4164 of 2007 vide order dated 28-02-2008. 5. A Division Bench of this Court has dealt with similar issue vide Writ Petition No.4164 of 2007 and held that the petitioner therein is guilty of the fraud, but had taken a lenient view keeping in view the length of service, the Last Grade post and other circumstances, and given the liberty to the applicant to make fresh representation to the competent authority to consider his case for appointment afresh. In the circumstances, we are not inclined to interfere with the impugned order. 6. However, in the instant case, the respondent – applicant had put in 20 years of service in the Department and he was discharging the duties of Chainman and drawing regular scale of pay. In the circumstances, following the observations and for the reasons stated in W.P.No.4164 of 2008 vide order dated 28-2-2008, the writ petition is disposed of giving liberty to the respondent – applicant to make a representation afresh, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of this order and thereafter, the competent authority shall consider the case of the respondent – applicant keeping in view the above factors, and in case appointment is made, the same shall be treated as fresh appointment, erasing the entire past service for all purposes. The exercise shall be completed on priority basis, preferably within three months from the date the respondent – applicant chooses to make the representation. 7. With the above observations, the writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. __________________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J. ___________________ C.V.RAMULU, J. 10-06-2008 bsc ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{RLD}