THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED and THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR W.A.Nos.128 and 129 of 2006 COMMON JUDGMENT (Per Sri Justice Ghulam Mohammed) Since common issue is involved in both these writ appeals and the parties are one and the same, they are being disposed of together by this common judgment. 2. The appellant, while working as Auction Superintendent, was issued with a charge sheet on 05.10.1987 alleging that he collected money illegally through his staff in the auction platform and also through brokers in the villages for upgrading the classification of tobacco and for giving out of turn allotment of bales to the growers and also did not exercise proper control over the staff working in the auction platform. After a detailed enquiry, he was imposed with the punishment of stoppage of three increments with cumulative effect vide memo dated 22.09.1992. Thereafter, the appellant was again issued with a charge sheet dated 23.12.1992, alleging that he allowed M/s. Sri Sanjay Tobacco, Guntur to purchase tobacco in excess of the letter of standing instructions and without official security and without receiving sale consideration, thereby loss was caused. After a detailed enquiry, he was imposed with the punishment of stoppage of annual increment with cumulative effect for two years vide memo dated 08.06.1994. Challenging both the said memos, he preferred appeals before the first respondent, who in turn dismissed the same vide orders dated 21.10.1997. Questioning the said memos and the appeals, the appellant filed W.P.Nos.10143 and 10223 of 1998 before this Court. Through orders dated 09.06.2005, this Court dismissed the said writ petitions. Aggrieved by the same, the appellant filed the present writ appeals. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the disciplinary authority imposed the punishment of three increments with cumulative effect apart from one increment with cumulative effect for two years. He contended that the appellate authority kept pending the appeals for a period of five years and dismissed the same merely extracting the articles of charge without considering various points raised by the appellant and as such, the purpose of filing the appeals was defeated. He also contended that the learned single Judge failed to observe that the appellate authority passed orders without application of mind as none of the grounds of appeals raised by the appellant has been considered. 4. The material on record shows that the appellate authority vide orders dated 21.10.1997 had confirmed the orders of punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority vide memos dated 22.09.1992 and 08.06.1994. A perusal of the said orders shows that the appellate authority while extracting the articles of charge observed that there was no deficiency in the conduct of the enquiry and there is no reason to overrule the orders of disciplinary authority especially, when no defect or error has been pointed out on the conduct of the enquiry. It is to be noticed that except the said observation, it has not considered any other grounds raised by the appellant in the grounds of appeal and even articles of charge. It is also to be noticed that the appellate authority kept the appeals pending for a period of five years and ultimately dismissed the same, without there being any discussion with regard to the contentions raised by the appellant and that the learned single Judge of this Court did not observe the same. Therefore, we are of the considered view that the orders impugned are liable to be set aside. 5. Accordingly, both the appeals are allowed, setting aside the impugned orders, and the matters are remitted back to the appellate authority for fresh consideration objectively after affording an opportunity to both parties, and for passing appropriate orders, expeditiously. No order as to costs. _____________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J __________________ SANJAY KUMAR, J Date:03.08.2011 sj