IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY THIRD 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 : 9056 of 2008 Between: The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep by its Chief Secretary to Government, General Administration Department, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Sri P. Chandra Manoharam, IFS, S/o. Sri P. Rama Mohan Rao, State Trading Circle, Tuljaguda Complex, M.J. Market, Hyderabad. 2 The Government of India, Rep by its Secretary, Ministry of Environment and Forests, Paryavaran Bhavan, CGO Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi. 3 The Union Public Service Commission, Rep by its Secretary, Dholpur House, Shajahan Road, New Delhi - 110 001. .....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" calling for the records relating to the orders of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench, Hyderabad passed in OA No. 394/2006 dated 02-11-2007 as being erroneous, illegal and unreasonable and quash the same and pass Counsel for the Petitioner:GP FOR SERVICES II Counsel for the Respondents: . The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI & THE HON'BLE SRI. JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH WRIT PETITION NO :9056 of 2008 ORDER: (Per the Honourable Smt. Justice T.Meena Kumari) This writ petition is filed by the petitioner seeking to set aside the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal passed in O.A.No:394 of 2006 on 2.11.2007. The 1st respondent herein is the applicant. He has filed the present O.A assailing the order of the 2nd respondent therein, in G.O.Rt.No:615, General Administration (SC.D) Department dated 7.2.2005 and as amended by G.O.Rt.No:2011, G.A (SC.D), Department, dated 23.4.2005 imposing the penalty of reduction by three stages in the time scale of pay for three years with a further direction that during the period of such reduction, he will not earn increments of pay and on the expiry of such period, the reduction will have the effect of postponing his future increments of pay. The tribunal having observed that neither the statement of findings of the disciplinary authority nor the notes of disagreement has been supplied to the applicant as per the rule 12 of All India Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1969 and apart from that, the disciplinary authority has committed an error in imposing the punishment as advised by the UPSC without giving an opportunity to the applicant, allowed the O.A. Having aggrieved by the same, the present O.A is preferred by the 2nd respondent. Heard the learned counsel and perused the entire material available on record as well as the order impugned. Before going into the merits of the case, it is relevant to note that disciplinary proceedings have been initiated against the applicant on the five articles of charges. It is the case of the applicant that there was no irregularity in conducting the enquiry till the stage of the enquiry officer submitted his report. The U.P.S.C analysed the case on merits as if they were conducting the enquiry and recording the findings on each of the charges and there was variance with regard to the conclusions arrived at by the enquiry officer. At this stage, it is relevant to note Rule 12 of All India Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, which reads thus: “Communication of orders-Orders made by the disciplinary authority shall be communicated to the member of the service who shall also be supplied with a copy of the report of the inquiring authority and a statement of finding of the disciplinary authority, together with brief reasons for its disagreements, if any, with the findings of the enquiry authority unless they have already been supplied to him and also a copy of the advice, if any given by the commission and where the disciplinary authority has not accepted the advice of the commission, a brief statement of the reasons for such non acceptance.” In the instant case, it is apparent on the face of the record that such a procedure has not been followed as contemplated under the provisions. In this view of the matter, there is no other go except to hold that the action of the respondents-authorities amounts to violation of the Rule 12 and thereby, the order impugned stands quashed as rightly observed by the tribunal. In this back ground of the matter and in the present facts and circumstances of the case coupled with rule 12 in question, We feel that the order of the tribunal, which does not suffer from any illegality or irregularity, needs no interference by this Court. Hence, this writ petition is devoid of merits and the same is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed. No costs. At this stage, while submitting that a contempt case filed before the tribunal, has been posted for appearance on 25.4.2008, the learned G.P seeks time to comply with the order of the tribunal. In view of the above submission and in view of the pendency of the writ petition till this day, We feel it appropriate to extend time for a period of three months from today for compliance of the order of the tribunal. ______________________ Justice T.Meena Kumari ___________________ Justice G.Chandraiah Dated:23.4.2008 Note: Communicate by wire at party’s costs (BO) Gurc/nn THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI & THE HON'BLE SRI. JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH WRIT PETITION NO :9056 of 2008 (Division Bench Order delivered by Honourable Smt. Justice T.Meena Kumari) 23/04/2008