IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI AND THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH WRIT PETITION NO : 22716 of 2006 Between: 1 The Secretary to Government, Higher Education (TE-2) Department, Secretariat, Government of Andhra Pradesh 2 The Director of Technical Education, Govt. of A.P. V Floor, BRKR Building, Tank Bund Road, Hyderabad. 3 The Accountant General, A.P. State, Hyderabad, (Not Necessary Party to this Petition) ..... PETITIONERS AND Sri Y.V.S.R. Murthy, Special Officer (Retd.) Government Polytechnic for Women, Srikakulam, R/o. Braves Building, 45-55/3/2, Abidnagar, Akkayapalem, Visakhapatnam. .....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 or direction more particularly one in the nature of "Writ of Certiorari" calling for the records relating to and connected with order dt. 21-2-2006 in OA No. 1360/2001 on the file of the Hon'ble A.P.A.T. Hyderabad and to quash or set-aside the same by holding as erroneous and contrary to law and pass such order or orders the Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstance of the case Counsel for the Petitioner: GP FOR SERVICES I Counsel for the Respondent No.: . The Court made the following : ORAL ORDER: (per THE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI) Seeking a writ of certiorari calling for the records relating to and connected with the order dated 21.02.2006 passed in O.A. No. 1360 of 2001 by the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad, and to quash the same holding it to be erroneous, the respondents in the above O.A. filed this writ petition. The respondent herein filed the above OA seeking to quash GO Ms. No. 153 Higher Education (TE.2) Department dated 7.11.2000 whereby, a penalty of 5% cut in pension, permanently, was imposed under Rule 9 of A.P. Pension Rules, 1980 and consequently to direct the petitioners herein to pay full pension and other retirement benefits with interest at 18% from the date of retirement. The respondent herein was appointed as Workshop Foreman on 2.8.1958 and was promoted as Lecturer in Mechanical Engineering on 29.11.1966. Subsequently, he was promoted as Head Mechanical Section and after serving at various places, he was superannuated on 30.9.1994, as Special Officer, Government Polytechnic for Women, Srikakulam. Before his superannuation, the respondent was served with a Charge Memo No. 1952/TE-2/94/1 dated 22.9.1994 alleging that he issued a bogus certificate on 10.12.1985 at Nizamabad, to which he submitted explanation to the effect that on the said date, neither he was working at Nizamabad nor did he issue the same. However, pending finalisation of the disciplinary proceedings, through GO Ms. NO. 122 Education (TE-2) Department dated 9.5.1996, the respondent was sanctioned 75% of the normal pension. The respondent filed OA No. 1188 of 1999 which was disposed of by the Tribunal directing the respondents therein to complete the disciplinary enquiry against the respondent herein in the year 1994 as expeditiously as possible, in any event, within six months and since that direction was not complied with, the respondent filed CA No. 426 of 1999 which was disposed of directing the respondents therein to comply the orders of the Tribunal. In pursuance of the said orders, after conducting Enquiry Officer, the Enquiry Officer submitted his report to the government on 26.6.2000 and a show cause notice came to be issued to the respondent on 5.9.2000 to which he submitted explanation to the effect that the beneficiary of the alleged bogus certificate was not examined before the Enquiry Officer. However, without considering the explanation submitted by the respondent, GO Ms. NO. 153 Dated 7.11.2000 came to be issued imposing a penalty of cut of 5% in pension on the respondent, with a view to avoid payment of interest on delayed retirement benefits. Case of the petitioners herein before the Tribunal is that the Director Personnel, Andhra Pradesh State Electricity Board, Hyderabad, brought to the notice of the petitioners herein that during the tenure as Head of Mechanical Engineering Section, Govt. Polytechnic, Nizamabad, the respondent had issued bogus Diploma Certificates and Marks Memo to one Mr. B.Shiva Rama Krishna, and he was selected as Sub-Engineer in their Department. The signature and authorship of the certificate issued by the respondent to Mr. B.Shiva Rama Krishna, was also authenticated by the A.P. Forensic Science Laboratory to the effect that there are similarities in the writing. In such circumstances, the petitioners, after consultation with the A.P. Public Service Commission, are perfectly justified in issuing the impugned G.O. The Tribunal, by the order, which is impugned in this writ petition, has allowed the O.A. setting aside GO Ms. No. 153 dated 7.11.2000 in toto entitling the respondent for the reliefs set forth in the O.A. Aggrieved thereby, the present writ petition is filed by the respondents in the above O.A. On 3.11.2006, when the writ petition has come for admission, this Court granted interim suspension. The respondent now filed WVMP No. 2700 of 2006 seeking to vacate the interim order dated 3.11.2006 made in WP MP No. 28888 of 2006. It is not the case of the respondent that no opportunity to defend him in the disciplinary proceedings was given nor it is his case that there is grave irregularity in conducting the enquiry. What all he contends is that he has not issued the bogus certificate to Mr. B.Shiva Rama Krishna, based on which he was selected at Sub- Engineer, in the Electricity Department. Admittedly, the bogus certificate alleged to have been issued by the respondent is neither available with Government nor the Technical Education Department or the Electricity Board. The finding of the Tribunal that para 7 of the impugned GO, cannot be sustained even remotely, cannot be accepted inasmuch as in the explanation submitted by the respondent to the show cause, he failed to demonstrate any procedural irregularity in conducting the enquiry against him. Admittedly, the finding given by the Enquiry Officer is not binding on the Disciplinary Authority, but it for the Disciplinary Authority to take an independent decision based on the material available on record and the reply submitted by the respondent to the final show cause notice. Therefore, in the facts and circumstances, the decision taken by the petitioners, cannot be said to be based on no evidence, when it is supported by the findings of the Forensic Science Laboratory that there are similarities in the questioned writing and the admitted writing of the respondent. In the absence of any cogent reason supporting the contention of the respondent, I am of the considered view that the Tribunal has erred in allowing the O.A. setting aside the impugned G.O., as such, the writ petition deserves to be allowed and is accordingly allowed and the WVMP No. 2700 of 2006 stands dismissed. No order as to costs. ____________________ T.MEENA KUMARI, J. __________________ G.CHANDRAIAH, J. April 24, 2008 MAS.