IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S. ASHOK KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO : 14687 of 1999 Between: S.T.G. Satagopala Charyulu son of Thokkada Post, Tungalam, Visakhapatnam Visakhapatnam District ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Secretary , Panchayat Raj Department The Govt. of AP Secretariat Building , Hyderabad 2 Registrar The Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal , Hyderabad 3 The Registrar, AP.AT. 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 and call for the records relating with OA.No.6240/1993 on the file of Hon'ble AP.A.T. and quash or set aside the Judgment dated. 19/03/1998 and consequently set aside the proceedings Memo.No.14760/Estt.11/91-10, dated 19/11/1992 and G.O.Ms.No. 741/76 P.R.Deptt. Dt. 20/07/1976 with consequential direction to the respondents to extend the same benefit as being given to Sri Veera Raju the then Junior Engineer. Counsel for the Petitioner:A.YADAGIRI REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR SERVICES I The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI and THE HON'BLE SRI. JUSTICE S. ASHOK KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO :14687 of 1999 ORDER: (per Hon’ble Smt. Justice T. Meena Kumari) The present writ petition is preferred by the petitioner aggrieved by an order, dated 19.3.1998 passed by the tribunal in O.A.No:6240 of 1993. The writ petitioner is the applicant before the tribunal. He filed the present O.A., seeking to call for the records relating to the memo No.14760/Estt.II/91-10, dated 19.11.1992 and G.O.Ms.No.741/76, P.R. Department, dated 20.7.1976 and to direct the respondent to extend the same benefit as being given to one Veera Raju, the then Junior Engineer. The facts of the case in brief are that the applicant was suspended on 25.1.1965 pending disciplinary action and after framing the charges, the matter was referred to the tribunal for disciplinary proceedings and after due enquiry, seven charges are proved against the applicant and thereupon, basing on the recommendations of the tribunal for disciplinary proceedings, the Government passed an order on 20.7.1976 dismissing the applicant from service. Having aggrieved by the same, the applicant filed R.P.No.140/76, which was dismissed on 22.3.1977 observing that it would be open to the applicant to make a representation to the Government. Subsequent thereto, the applicant made a representation to the Government. But the said representation was rejected. Hence, the applicant filed O.A.No.13971 of 1991 and the same was disposed of directing the applicant to give a further representation to the respondents while directing the Government to consider the same. But, the representation made by the applicant subsequent thereto, was also rejected. At this stage of the proceedings, the applicant has filed the above O.A. It is the main grievance of the petitioner that along with him, another employee viz., A. Veera Raju was also involved in the case and the Government awarded punishment of stoppage of two increments with cumulative effect whereas he was imposed the punishment of dismissal from service. The tribunal having observed that the Government having examined the matter once again on the representation made by the applicant, rejected the same giving reasons as to why a lesser punishment was awarded to A. Veera Raju and that the order impugned is passed exercising the discretion vested under law and if the punishment is altered at this stage, the same would amount to reviewing the order passed in R.P.No.140 of 1976, dismissed the above O.A. Having aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition has been filed. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader and perused the material available on record. On a perusal of the order impugned and the material on record, it is apparent that on the earlier occasion in R.P.No.140 of 1976, the applicant challenged the order of the dismissal and the said R.P. was dismissed observing that the petitioner is at liberty to make a representation to the Government on the ground that he was kept under suspension for a long time. With the aid of the said observation, the applicant made representations. But the same were rejected. Under the guise of rejection orders on the representation, the petitioner filed the above O.A., seeking lesser punishment. The representations of the applicant as well as the case of the applicant have already been adjudicated on its own merits in the earlier proceedings before the tribunal for disciplinary proceedings and the Administrative Tribunal as well as the Government. The tribunal having considered the analogy that has been adopted in case of one Veera Raju by the Government, has rightly come to the conclusion that the applicant is not entitled for the same. Thus, the applicant has been afforded the opportunities to seek his redressel before the Government, which has rejected the case of the applicant after thorough examination of the issue involved. When once the applicant is given liberty to make a representation to the Government, it does not mean that he can challenge the issue, which has already been adjudicated, from time to time on one pretext or the other without any basis. Under the above circumstances, We feel that the order of the tribunal does not suffer from any illegality or legal infirmity and thereby, the writ petition is devoid of merits and the same is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. _________________________ Justice T. Meena Kumari _______________________ Justice S.Ashok Kumar Date: 16th April, 2008 Nn/Gurc. THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI and THE HON'BLE SRI. JUSTICE S. ASHOK KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO : 14687 of 1999 (Division Bench Order delivered by the Hon’ble Smt. Justice T. Meena Kumari) 16.4.2008