IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH 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 : 361 of 2009 Between: The Director, A.P. Government Text Book Press, Mint Compound, Hyderabad. ..... PETITIONER AND Sri V.Lingam S/o.Late V.Venkatesham R/o.H.No.1-5-563/2/2, Chetana Housing Colony, Near Ambedkar Nagar, Old Alwal, Secunderabad. .....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 to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Certiorari calling for the records relating to and connected with the orders dated 24.11.2008 in O.A.No.7297 of 2007 on the file of the A.P. Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad and to quash or set aside the same by holding as erroneous and contrary to law and erroneous and pass such other order or orders. Counsel for the Petitioner:GP FOR SERVICES I Counsel for the Respondent No.: . The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO.361 OF 2009 ORDER: (Per GM,J) This writ petition is filed seeking a writ of certiorari to quash the decision dated 24.11.2008 rendered by the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad (for brevity, ‘the Tribunal) in O.A. No.7297 of 2007. By the said order, the Tribunal set aside the proceedings issued by the writ petitioner in Rc.No.7099/99/E1 dated 27.10.2007 imposing the punishment of stoppage of two annual grade increments with cumulative effect upon the respondent herein, the applicant before the Tribunal. For the sake of convenience, the parties hereto are referred as per their array before the Tribunal. The brief facts of the case are as follows: The applicant worked in the Office of the respondent/writ petitioner as Senior Assistant since 19.12.1980. While so, he was asked to look after the post of Cashier from 11.08.1988 to 31.10.1991 and thereafter he was again transferred as Senior Assistant in the same Office. The applicant handed over the charge of the post of Cashier to one K.Krishna Kumar and handed over the UDP Register to one P.M.Das, the then Accounts Officer, as directed by the Deputy Director. While the matter stood thus, the respondent issued him the Memo dated 23.11.1992 calling for his explanation as to why he did not complete the entries in the Cash Book and Subsidiary Register during his tenure from 01.04.1991 to 31.10.1991 as Cashier. He submitted his explanation on 30.11.1992 informing the respondent that as per the duty chart dated 12.08.1985, it is the duty of the Senior Assistant to write the Cash Book and the entries in the Cash Book were made only by the Senior Assistants working at the relevant time. However, the applicant was kept under suspension by proceedings dated 31.01.1999 of the respondent. Aggrieved thereby, the applicant preferred an appeal to the Government. As no action was taken by the Government on the appeal preferred by the applicant, he filed O.A.No.4118 of 1999 before the Tribunal. While disposing of the said O.A. on 12.07.1999, the Tribunal directed the Government to dispose of the appeal preferred by the applicant as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within a period of three months from date of receipt of a copy of that order. Thereafter, a charge memo was issued to the applicant on 26.07.1999 and he submitted his explanation on 12.08.1999. Subsequently, an Enquiry Officer was appointed by the respondent on 24.08.1999. After completing the enquiry, the Enquiry Officer submitted his report on 18.05.2000. While so, the applicant filed O.A. No.648 of 2001 seeking a direction to the respondent to review his suspension and the Tribunal disposed of the said O.A. on 05.02.2000, directing the respondent to review the suspension of the applicant in terms of G.O.Ms.No.86 dated 08.03.1994. The applicant filed several O.As. and C.As. before the Tribunal seeking directions to the respondent and although the Tribunal gave directions in those cases it appears that the same were not complied with. Thereupon, the applicant submitted a representation to the respondent to drop the charges framed against him and grant all consequential benefits. The respondent issued a memo rejecting his request on the premise that the charges could not be dropped by the appointing authority. Aggrieved thereby, the applicant filed O.A.No.4022 of 2004 before the Tribunal and the Tribunal while allowing the said O.A. on 17.10.2005, set aside the Memo in Rc.No.7099/99/E1 dated 02.07.2004 issued by the respondent. Challenging the said order of the Tribunal, the respondent filed W.P.No.4049 of 2006 before this Court and this Court by its final order dated 08.06.2007, directed the respondent to complete the enquiry within a period of three months therefrom basing on the records available with them, failing which the order of the Tribunal would become operative. However, as the respondent did not complete the enquiry within the time stipulated by this Court, the applicant made a representation to the respondent to implement the Judgment in W.P.No.4049 of 2006. In reply thereto, the respondent issued show cause notice dated 28.09.2007 directing the applicant to submit his defence statement in 5 days as to why the punishment of stoppage of two annual grade increments with cumulative effect should not be imposed upon him inasmuch as two charges were held proved. The applicant made a representation dated 01.10.2007 to the respondent to supply the report submitted by the Enquiry Officer. Accordingly, the enquiry report was supplied to the applicant and the applicant submitted his defence statement in detail on 07.10.2007 requesting the respondent to drop all further proceedings and to release the benefits, including full pension to him. The respondent without considering the said defence statement of the applicant issued memo dated 27.10.2007 imposing the punishment of stoppage of two annual grade increment with cumulative effect. Aggrieved thereby, the applicant filed O.A.No.7297 of 2007 before the Tribunal. By the impugned order the Tribunal allowed the said O.A. Hence, the present writ petition. Heard the learned Government Pleader for Services-I appearing for the writ petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent/applicant. The learned Government Pleader for Services-I contended that earlier the respondent/applicant straightaway filed the O.A. before the Tribunal without availing the remedy of appeal and the Tribunal ought to have rejected the O.A. as not maintainable in view of the specific embargo contained under Section 20 of the Administrative Tribunals Act. He also contended that the Tribunal had erroneously allowed the O.A. on the premise that there was a delay in the initiation of disciplinary proceedings qua the applicant as the allegations pertained to the year 1991, ignoring the fact that the applicant in fact participated in the disciplinary enquiry and only after the final order was passed, objections as to delay were raised, which ought not to have been entertained. He further contended that in cases of allegations relating to misappropriation of funds, it is difficult to unearth the fraud soon after its perpetration and the applicant could not be permitted to take advantage, even if there is any delay in initiating the action in the matter. He submitted that after a full-fledged enquiry and after considering the evidence on record, the applicant was inflicted with the punishment of stoppage of two annual grade increments with cumulative effect. He finally contended that the Tribunal, without considering these aspects in the proper perspective, erroneously held that the prescribed procedure was not followed and quashed the proceedings issued by the respondent in Rc.No.7099/99/E1 dated 27.10.2007. He therefore prayed that the impugned order passed by the Tribunal may be set aside and the writ petition be allowed. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the applicant submitted that when a Division Bench of this Court, in W.P.No.4049 of 20076 filed by the respondent, specifically directed, having due regard to the fact that the enquiry proceedings were still pending by then, that the enquiry should be completed within a period of three months basing on the records available with them failing which the order of the Tribunal would become operative, the respondent failed to comply with the said direction given by this Court and therefore the order dated 17.10.2005 passed by the Tribunal would automatically come into effect. On facts, he contended that the Tribunal considered all the aspects of the matter and passed a detailed order which did not call for any interference by this Court and prayed that the writ petition be dismissed. In view of the rival contentions, the point that arises for our determination is as to whether the impugned order passed by the Tribunal is liable to be set aside? We have perused the impugned order and the other material placed on record. The three charges framed against the applicant in the charge memo dated 26.07.1999 read as follows: 1) The applicant handed over Rs.17,41,685-90 as shortage at the time of handing over charge to his successor, as per the verification made by the Hon’ble House on Printing of Text Books. 2) The applicant had not maintained Cash Book for the period from 01.04.1991 to 31.10.1991. 3) Due to non-maintenance of Cash Book, the amounts received and paid during the period from 01.04.1991 to 31.10.1991 could not be arrived at. A perusal of the record clearly shows that the charge memo in question was issued to the applicant chiefly on the ground of misappropriation. Different O.As. were filed by the applicant before the Tribunal and on all the occasions the Tribunal gave several directions to the respondent as to the completion of the enquiry, etc. However, it appears that the respondent had not made any attempt to complete the enquiry expeditiously even after the directions given by this Court in W.P.No.4049 of 2006 on 08.06.2007. It is the case of the applicant right from the beginning that as per the office proceedings dated 12.08.1985 issued by the respondent it is the duty of the Senior Assistant to maintain the Cash Book. A perusal of the said office proceedings dated 12.08.1985 clearly shows that it is the duty of the Senior Assistant to write the Cash Book, UDP Register and Permanent Advance Register whereas the duties of the Cashier are only encashment of cheques, payment of amounts recovered from the salary at source to the respective departments, recoupment of permanent advance and refund of EMD and SD. Since the applicant was working at the relevant time as Cashier and as per the proceedings dated 12.08.1985, it is the duty of the Senior Assistant to write the entries in the Cash Book, UDP Register, etc. and it is not the duty of the Cashier. No proceedings have been placed on record showing any change in the above proceedings dated 12.08.1985. According to the applicant, he handed over the records to one P.M.Das who worked at that time. However, it is an admitted fact that the cash book is not available. Therefore, the Enquiry Officer held that Charge No.I was not proved. However, Charge No.II was held proved on the premise that the applicant attended to drawing of cash from the Bank and its disbursement and had also written the UD Misc. Register but had not made entries in the cash book. As the cash book was not written, the actual amounts received and paid during the period 01.04.1991 to 31.10.1991 could not be arrived at. Hence, charge No.III was also held proved. No witnesses were examined and no records were produced to prove the charges levelled against the applicant. Once the Charge No.I was held not proved on the ground that the cash book was not available, it is not discernable as to how the Enquiry Officer came to the conclusion that Charges No.II and III are held proved in its absence, particularly when it is not the duty of the Cashier to make entries in the Cash Book and other registers. It appears that no procedure was followed in conducting the enquiry except considering the statement of the applicant. Basing on the report of the Enquiry Officer, show cause notice dated 28.09.2007 was issued by the respondent on the ground that the Charges No.II and III were held proved. Thereafter, the applicant was inflicted with the punishment of stoppage of two annual grade increments with cumulative effect, which is a major penalty. When it was the specific case of the applicant that it is not his duty to maintain the Cash Book and other registers, it is the duty of the respondent to examine some responsible officer to say that it is the duty of the Cashier to do so. The respondents also failed to examine even P.M.Das, who is the superior of the applicant and to whom the applicant had handed over the Registers as directed by the Deputy Director. Further, the cash book which is the substratum of the charges levelled against the applicant was not even available in proof of the allegations made. Without conducting the enquiry as per the procedure prescribed, the applicant could not be found fault with and inflicted with the punishment of stoppage of two annual grade increments with cumulative effect. The Tribunal analysed all these aspects and arrived at the correct findings. The Tribunal did not commit any jurisdictional error and did not overstep its jurisdiction so as to warrant the exercise of our certiorari jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In the circumstances, we are not inclined to disturb the findings arrived at by the Tribunal. For the foregoing reasons, the writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. In the circumstances, there shall be no order as to costs. ___________________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J. ____________________ SANJAY KUMAR, J. 24th February, 2009. PGS / VGSR