HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR W.P.NO. 3463 OF 2007 Dt.2.2.2010 Between: The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Secretary to Government (FP), Finance (Admn.I.Vig) Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad and others .. Petitioners And K.Ramakrishna .. Respondent HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR W.P.NO. 3463 OF 2007 ORDER: (Per Sri Justice Vilas V. Afzulpurkar) This writ petition is filed by the State directed against the orders of the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal allowing O.A.No.5347 of 2006 by order, dated 11.12.2006. The respondent herein had approached the Tribunal seeking invalidation of G.O.Rt.No.2352, Finance (Admn.I.Vig) Department, dated 29.6.2006, whereunder the punishment of withholding of 5% cut in pension for a period of three years was imposed on the respondent on account of disciplinary proceedings initiated against him after his retirement. The charge against the respondent was as follows: “That Sri K.Ramakrishna, while functioning as Chief Accounts Officer (FAC) O/o Government Central Press, Hyderabad has approved the proceedings No.1651/AE1/ Accts/98 on 23.12.1998, in which Sri V.Sattaiah, Attender, O/o. Chief Accounts Officer, Govt. Central Press, Hyderabad has been permitted to retire on Medical Invalidation based on the note orders passed by his predecessor in violation of orders issued in G.O.Ms.No.214, G.A (Ser.A) Department, dated 9.6.1998 read with G.O.Ms.No.570, G.A. (Ser.A) Department, dated 17.12.1998 and thereby acted as unbecoming of a Government Servant.” The imputations of the charge were that while the respondent herein, who was Accounts Officer, kept in full additional charge of the post of Chief Accounts Officer of Government Central Press and had taken over charge of the said post from Syed Ahmed Nizamuddin, the respondent had issued proceedings No.1651/AE1/Accounts/98, dated 23.12.1998 in which V.Sattaiah, Attender was permitted to retire on medical invalidation. In the said disciplinary case, the respondent had contended that even before he issued the aforesaid orders, the Chief Accounts Officer, who was predecessor of the respondent, had approved the note on 17.12.1998 itself with regard to the medical invalidation of the said Attender. On the same day, the respondent was kept in full additional charge of the post of Chief Accounts Officer and as such the respondent has merely issued the said order. However, rejecting the said explanation under the aforesaid G.O.Rt.No.2352, dated 29.6.2006, a punishment of withholding of 5% of pension for a period of three years was imposed on the respondent. Questioning the same, the respondent approached the Tribunal by the aforesaid O.A.No.5347 of 2006. The Tribunal, while setting aside the aforesaid G.O., was of the view that the charge alleging misconduct levelled against the respondent is purely technical in nature and no grave misconduct or negligence on the part of the respondent is evident. Since there is no pecuniary loss to the Government, nor any benefit is showered on the said Attender by approving medical invalidation even if there is any technical flaw or technical irregularity, the respondent cannot be put on the pains of disciplinary proceedings. In that view of the matter, the impugned G.O.Rt.No.2352, dated 29.6.2006 was set aside and the O.A. was allowed. The aforesaid order of the Tribunal is under challenge at the instance of the State. We have heard the learned Government Pleader for Services-II appearing for the petitioners and Sri M.Panduranga Rao, learned counsel appearing for the respondent. Learned Government Pleader has contended that the medical invalidation of the said Attender has not been done in accordance with the procedure prescribed as per G.O.Ms.No.69, General Administration (Ser.A) Department, dated 28.2.1998, and neither the predecessor officer of the respondent nor the respondent has taken care to ensure that the requirements under the aforesaid G.O., are fulfilled before approving the medical invalidation of the said Attender. The learned Government Pleader therefore submits that required scrutiny as being laid down under G.O.Ms.No.570, General Administration (Ser.A) Department, dated 17.12.1998 has also been ignored. The said irregularity therefore was clearly evident from the facts of the case and as such the impugned G.O.Rt.No.2352, dated 29.6.2006 imposing 5% cut in the pension of the respondent was justified. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent, however, contends that the respondent only succeeded to the office of the Chief Accounts Officer and was made incharge of the said office and by then the predecessor Chief Accounts Officer has already approved the medical invalidation of the said Attender. The respondent is therefore merely issued order and as such the punishment imposed is purely on account of technical flaw and the order of the Tribunal does not warrant any interference. We have considered the aforesaid contentions. We have also noticed the counter affidavit of the State Government before the Tribunal, which reads as follows: “In reply to para 6 it is submitted that Sri V.Sattaiah, while working as Attender in Accounts Branch, Government Central Press, Hyderabad, has applied for medical invalidation retirement on 17.8.1998. The then incharge Chief Accounts Officer Sri Syed Ahmed Nizamuddin, has referred the case to the Medical Board, Osmania General Hospital, Hyderabad, vide letter No.AE (1) 1651/98 dated 9.9.1998. The Superintendent, Osmania General Hospital, Hyderabad has furnished the proceedings of the Regional Medical Board dated 28.9.1998, wherein it was declared that Sri V.Sattaiah, Attender was permanently incapacitated for further service. The concerned section Senior Accountant and Junior Accounts Officer have submitted a Note along with Medical Board’s report to the then incharge C.A.O, Sri Syed Nizamuddin on 17.12.1998 for orders to retire Sri V.Sattaiah, Attender on medical invalidation. The said note approved by the incharge C.A.O, Sri Syed Ahmed Nizamuddin on 17.12.1998. On the same day i.e., on 17.12.1998 the applicant Sri K.Ramakrishna, Accounts Officer was kept on full additional charge of the post of Chief Accounts Officer of Government Central Press and he has taken over the charge of the post of Chief Accounts Officer from Sri Syed Ahmed Nizamuddin. In official position of Head of Office, the applicant issued orders to retire Sri V.Sattaiah, Attender on medical invalidation on 23.12.1998 vide proceedings No.1651/AE(1) Accts/98, dated 23.12.1998 based on the note approved by the predecessor of the applicant. Before issue of such orders the applicant should examine the Government Orders whether he was competent or not to issue such retirement orders even though his predecessor have already passed orders on note file. As being a Head of Office and to safe guard the administration of Accounts Branch, Government Central Press, Hyderabad, the applicant having liberty to re-examine or review or rectify any errors or mistakes committed by his predecessor and if it is necessary such matters be brought to the notice of his superior authority on public interest. But he has not done such review or brought to the notice of his superiority authority.” It would be noticed from the above that the predecessor Chief Accounts Officer had referred the said medical invalidation to the Medical Board, Osmania General Hospital and in the light of their certification that the said Attender is permanently incapacitated for further service. As the Chief Accounts Officer has approved the note, the said note together with the Medical Board’s report was therefore placed before the respondent herein when he was kept in full additional charge of the post of Chief Accounts Officer and he has merely issued orders approving the medical invalidation of the said Attender. When the counter of the petitioner-State itself states that the predecessor Chief Accounts Officer had acted upon the opinion of the Medical Board of Osmania General Hospital, it cannot be said that either the predecessor Chief Accounts Officer or the succeeding Chief Accounts Officer, respondent herein, had committed any grave irregularity in approving the said medical invalidation of the Attender. The Tribunal has noticed that after approving the medical invalidation of the said Attender he died immediately thereafter. There is no allegation that the petitioner-State is put to any financial loss, nor there is anything to suggest even negligence on the part of the predecessor Chief Accounts Officer or the respondent herein. Merely because it is safer to review the decision does not amount to negligence so as to warrant punishment in disciplinary proceedings particularly when the respondent has retired long back and the punishment of 5% cut on pension is clearly unjustified. The view of the Tribunal that the imposition of said punishment is unwarranted on the facts and circumstances case therefore does not require any interference. The writ petition is liable to be dismissed and the same is accordingly dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. ________________ V.ESWARAIAH, J. _________________________ VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J. 2.2.2010 kpr