IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO : 2828 of 2009 Between: C.K. Mishra, IFS. S/o. Rama Krishna Mishra O/o. Forest Complex, Cuddapah, A.P. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Union of India Rep. by it's Secretary Ministry of Environment & Forests, Paryavan Bhavan, C.G.O., Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi. 2 The Government of Andhra Pradesh Rep. by the Chief Secretary Secretariat, Hyderabad - 500 004. 3 The Government of Andhra Pradesh Rep. by its Secretary to Govt. (Political) Secretariat, Hyderabad. 4 The Principal Chief Conservator of Forests Department of Forests Government of Andhra Pradesh, Aranya Bhavan, Saifabad, Hyderabad A.P. .....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 t issue an order or direction more in the nature of Writ of Certiorari, or any other appropriate Writ calling for the records pertaining to O.A.No.420 of 2006 dated 16- 07-2008 of the Hon'ble Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench, Hyderabad and Charge Memo issued in G.O.Rt.No.1896 General Administration (SC.D)Dated 23-05-2000 and G.O.Rt.No. 128 General Administration (SC.D) Dated 7-1-2003 imposing the Penalty of Censure and the Order No.13011/05/2003-AVU Dated 2-9-2004 rejecting the appeal and quash and set aside the same as illegal, arbitrary, and unconstitutional. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.K.SUDHAKAR REDDY Counsel for Respondent No.1: MR.A.RAJASHEKAR REDDY (SC FOR CENTRAL GOVERNMENT Counsel for Respondents 2 to 4: GP FOR SERVICES-I The Court made the following : ORDER: (per GM, J) This writ petition is filed seeking a writ of Certiorari to quash the order dated 16-07-2008 passed in OA No.420 of 2006 by the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, the charge Memos dated 23-05-2000 and 07-01-2003 and the rejection of appeal dated 02-09-2004. 2. The petitioner is working as Conservator of Forests, Kadapa . A charge memo was issued to him on 23-05-2000 on the ground that consequent on his transfer, he held a press conference on 16-11-1999 and made allegations about implementation of various programmes/schemes in DRDA & DDP, Anantpur, in contravention of Rule 7(1) of All India Service (Conduct) Rules, 1968. In response to the said charge memo, he submitted a written statement of defence vide letter dated 08-06-2000 denying the charge framed against him. The Inquiring Authority conducted detailed enquiry and submitted a report dated 09.01.2001 holding that the charge framed against the petitioner was proved and the same was communicated to him vide memo dated 29.01.2001 directing him to submit his representation, if any, as required under Rule 9 of All India Services (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1969. Thereafter, he submitted a representation dated 14-02- 2001. The Government considered his representation, and in consultation with the Union Public Service Commission, imposed the penalty of censure on the petitioner vide G.O.Rt.No.128,dated 07-01-2003, against which, he preferred an appeal before the Government of India and the same was dismissed vide order dated 02-09-2004. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed O.A.No.420 of 2006, which was also dismissed. Challenging the same, he filed the present writ petition. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that the findings given in the inquiry report are based on surmises and suspicions; that the relevant documents sought by the petitioner were not supplied to him and that no reasonable opportunity has been given to him. He further submitted that the petitioner conducted the press conference on 16.11.1999 by way of rejoinder only, but not to criticize the policy of the Government. 4. On the other hand, learned Government Pleader for Services-I submitted that the Tribunal has considered the matter in detail and there is no need to interfere with the impugned order, by this Court. 5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Services-I and perused the material on record. 6. In the order impugned, the Tribunal clearly held that the findings of the inquiry report are based on various press reports and the letters of the District Collector, Anantapur and the Commissioner. It further held that both the Inquiring Authority and the Union Public Service Commission have observed that the petitioner made some very intemperate statements criticizing the work of his colleagues and his predecessors and caused embarrassment to the Government, and ultimately dismissed the said OA. As seen from the record, it is evident that the petitioner has been supplied with all the relevant documents and reasonable opportunity has also been given to him by the Government before imposing the penalty and it can be said that the penalty of censure imposed on the petitioner is too meager than the penalty imposed in other disciplinary cases. In these circumstances, we are of the view that there are no legal infirmities in the impugned order warranting interference by this Court. 7. The Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed. No costs. _____________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J _________________ SANJAY KUMAR, J Date:16.02.2009 sj