IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED and THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.22239 of 2008 Between: 1 The Divisional Forest Officer, Nizamabad, Nizamabad District. 2 The Conservator of Forests, Nizamabad Circle, Nizamabad. ..... PETITIONERS AND T. Babu Singh, S/o. Narayana Singh, Forest Beat Officer (u/d), Range Kammarapally Division, Nizamabad District, R/o. H.No.3-3-468/18, Gayathree Nagar, Nizamabad. .....RESPONDENT Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate Writ or direction one in the nature of "Writ of Certiorari" calling for the records relating to and connected with the orders dated 9-6-2008 in O.A.No.1789/2008 on the Hon'ble A.P. Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad, and to quash or set aside the same by holding as erroneous and contrary to law. Counsel for the Petitioners: GP FOR SERVICES I Counsel for the Respondent: MS. A.DEEPTHI The Court made the following: THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B. SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.22239 OF 2008 ORDER: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice B. Seshasayana Reddy) This writ petition has been filed assailing the order dated 09.06.2008 passed in O.A.No.1789 of 2008 on the file of the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad, whereby and whereunder the Tribunal has set aside the dismissal order dated 13.10.2006 on the ground that the disciplinary authority has misappreciated the enquiry report. The respondent herein worked as a Forest Beat Officer of Nizamabad Division. He was served with a charge memo in Rc.No.38/N5/2006 (1) dated 13.02.2006. The charge is with regard to negligence of duty, which resulted in booking irregular expenditure of Rs.2,65,685-24 ps. during 2005-06 in VSS works under Kowlas Beat. The respondent submitted his explanation to the charge memo. The disciplinary authority conducted an enquiry and imposed a punishment of dismissal from service. The respondent-delinquent filed an appeal against the order of dismissal and recovery of amount to the Conservator of Forests, Nizamabad Circle, Nizamabad. His appeal came to be rejected on 22.02.2007. The order of dismissal as confirmed by the appellate authority came to be challenged by the respondent herein before the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal by filing O.A.No.1789 of 2008. The Tribunal, following the Judgment of the Supreme Court in M.V. Bijlani Vs. Union of India and others ((2006) 5 SCC 88), proceeded to set aside the order of dismissal and consequently allowed the O.A., by order dated 09.06.2008. The said order is under challenge in this writ petition. Rule nisi came to be issued on 14.10.2008. When the W.P.M.P.No.28981 of 2008 came up for consideration, with the consent of the counsel appearing for the parties, the writ petition is taken up for disposal. Heard the learned Government Pleader for Services-I appearing on behalf of the writ petitioners and Ms. A.Deepthi, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent. Learned Government Pleader submits that the charge, if read intrinsically, relates to misappropriation and, therefore, the disciplinary authority is justified in recording a finding that the respondent- delinquent misappropriated Rs.2,65,685-24 ps. We have gone through the charge framed against the respondent- delinquent. The charge reads as hereunder: “Negligence of duty resulting in booking irregular expenditure of Rs.2,65,685-24 ps. during 2005-06 in VSS works under Kowlas Beat.” We have read and reread the charge. It does not indicate that the respondent-delinquent misappropriated an amount of Rs.2,65,685-24 ps. The disciplinary authority proceeded to pass final orders on the premise that the charge in respect of misappropriation has been proved. When the respondent-delinquent has not been charged for misappropriating the amount, the question of disciplinary authority punishing the respondent-delinquent on the said premise is wholly unjustified. In M.V. Bijlani’s case, cited supra, the Supreme Court held that enquiry into the allegations in respect of which the delinquent officer has not been charged was not proper. In view of the settled proposition of law, the Tribunal is justified in setting aside the dismissal order passed by the disciplinary authority against the respondent-delinquent. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent submits that substantial amount indicated in the charge has already been paid. Anyhow, this is a matter, which the disciplinary authority has to keep in view while passing final order. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of, reserving liberty to the disciplinary authority to pass fresh orders uninfluenced by the earlier orders and keeping in view the charge and finding recorded thereunder. No order as to costs. ___________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J ______________________ B. SESHASAYANA REDDY, J 18th November, 2008 IBL Note:- Issue CC in one week