IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE THIRD DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED & THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G.BHAVANI PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO : 23820 of 2008 Between: 1 The Governnment of Andhra Pradesh Rep.by its Secretary Finance(Admn.I) Department, Secretariat,Hyderabad 2 The Director of Treasures and Accounts Andhra Pradesh,Hyderabad 3 The Deputy Director District Treasury Officer Collectorate,Srikakulam District ..... PETITIONERS AND 1 C.H.V Ramana Rao S/o Late Gunnaiah, Assistant Treasury Officer(Retired) at New Colonym Srungavarapukota Vizianagaram District 2 The Accounts General Andhra Pradesh Hyderabad .....RESPONDENTS 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 a 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 Admn Tribunal, Hyderabad passed in O.A No.4455/2003 dt 08-04-2008 as being erroneous illegal, and unreasonable and quash the same. Counsel for the Petitioners: GP FOR SERVICES II Counsel for the Respondent No.: . The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED & THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G.BHAVANI PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO : 23820 of 2008 ORAL ORDER: (Per Hon’ble Sri. Justice Ghulam Mohammed) This writ petition is ﬁled challenging the order of the A.P. Administrative Tribunal, dated 8.4.2008 passed in O.A.No.4455 of 2003. The 1st respondent herein is the applicant before the Tribunal. He ﬁled the above O.A., seeking to declare that the action of the Government in issuing G.O.Rt.No.1129 Finance (Admn.I) Department, dated 4.4.2003 purporting to impose a punishment of 50% cut in the pension of the applicant, as illegal and arbitrary and to set aside the same. The Tribunal allowed the O.A. setting aside the impugned G.O. Having aggrieved by the same, the authorities filed the present writ petition. Heard the learned Government Pleader and the learned Counsel appearing for the 1st respondent-applicant and perused the material available on record. On a perusal of the material available on record, it is obvious that a departmental enquiry was initiated against the applicant for two charges. One is that the applicant as Assistant Treasury Oﬃcer in the oﬃce of the District Treasury, Srikakulam, endorsed a note ﬁle, “May be approved” on a proposal submitted by the Sub Treasury Oﬃcer for regularization and declaration of probation of nine candidates and another charge is that he also made similar endorsement on another note ﬁle for irregular promotion to two candidates from Attender to Shroﬀ. In this regard, enquiry was conducted and a report was submitted that charge No.1 was proved and Charge No.2 was not proved. Accepting the said report, the Government passed the impugned order. According to the applicant, at the instance of the then DTO, Srikakulam, the note was generated in the oﬃce and due to pressure only, being a subordinate oﬃcer, he made an endorsement “may be approved”. In this connection, enquiry was conducted against the applicant and one M.V. Ramana Murty, Senior Accountant in the Sub Treasury Oﬃce. According to the Senior Accountant, the note itself was dictated by the DTO and they were forced to subscribe their signatures. The said explanation of the Senior Accountant was accepted. Ultimately, the said senior accountant was exonerated. At this juncture, it is pertinent to note that no enquiry was initiated against the STO on the ground that he died. Against the District Treasury Oﬃcer, who passed the orders of regularization, no enquiry was conducted on the ground that he retired from service and the incident in question took place four years prior to his retirement. The material on record goes to show that actually, STO, DTO, Senior Accountant and the applicant were involved in the present issue. Out of four persons, three of them were exonerated on one or other grounds. Leaving the other persons, the implication of the applicant alone in the present issue, amounts to discrimination as rightly observed by the Tribunal. The enquiry report clearly goes to show that it was done only at the instance and dictation of the DTO. Under these circumstances, We feel that the ﬁndings of the Enquiry Oﬃcer and its consequential impugned order are not sustainable, as rightly observed by the Tribunal. In this view of the matter, We feel that the order of the Tribunal does not suﬀer from any illegality or irregularity warranting interference of this Court and the present writ petition is devoid of merits and the same is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the present writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. However, time granted by the Tribunal is extended by two more weeks from today. __________________________ Justice Ghulam Mohammed ________________________ Justice G. Bhavani Prasad Date: 3.11.2008 Nn THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED & THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G.BHAVANI PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO : 23820 of 2008 (Order delivered by Hon’ble Sri Justice Ghulam Mohammed) 03.11.2008