IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE EIGHTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED and THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.SWAROOP REDDY WRIT PETITION No.26258 of 2010 Between: The Government of India rep by Secretary and others ..... PETITIONER(S) AND P.G. Krishna Murthy and another .....RESPONDENT(S) THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED and THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.SWAROOP REDDY WRIT PETITION No.26258 of 2010 ORDER: (per HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED) This Writ Petition is filed seeking to quash the order dated 19.03.2010 passed in O.A.No.218 of 2008 by the Central Administrative Tribunal, whereby and whereunder the relief sought by the applicant therein (first respondent herein) to declare the proceedings of the second respondent therein (second petitioner herein) dated 20.02.2006 and the consequential proceedings of the first respondent therein (first petitioner herein) dated 03.10.2007 as illegal and arbitrary, set aside the same and, consequently, to direct the petitioners herein to release the increments with all consequential benefits including monetary benefits, was allowed. 2. The facts, in brief, are that the first respondent was appointed as Deputy Superintending Archaeological Engineer in the year 1980 and a charge memo dated 22.01.2003 was issued to him alleging that he was found to have kept unaccounted cash of Rs.1 lakh in a suspicious manner in his office almirah. Dissatisfied with the explanation submitted by him, Enquiry Officer was appointed. The Enquiry Officer, after due enquiry, gave report stating that the charges framed against the first respondent are not proved. In disagreement with the inquiry report, the disciplinary authority i.e. the second petitioner herein, by order dated 20.02.2006, passed orders imposing a penalty of reduction of pay by five stages in the time scale of pay for a period of five years with further direction that he will not earn increments of pay during this period and, on expiry of the said period, the reduction will have the effect of postponing the future increments of pay. The appeal preferred by him was rejected by order dated 03.10.2007. Questioning the same, the first respondent herein filed O.A.No.218 of 2008 before the Tribunal which passed the impugned order. 3. Heard the learned counsel for both sides. Perused the material available on record. 4. It is contended that the disciplinary authority ought to have furnished the reasons to the delinquent officer, the first respondent herein, for not accepting the report of the Enquiry Officer and give an opportunity to him with regard to such disagreement. This procedure has not been adhered to by the disciplinary authority and ultimately the aforesaid punishment was imposed on him. The Tribunal, considering the material on record, rightly found fault with the procedure followed by the disciplinary authority and held that the disciplinary authority acted contrary to the judgments rendered by the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court in STATE BANK OF INDIA vs. ARVIND K. SHUKLA[1] and PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK vs. KUNJ BEHARI MISRA[2] held that the disciplinary authority which disagreed with the conclusions and findings arrived at by the Enquiring officer is required to record its tentative reasons for such disagreement and the reasons should be furnished to the delinquent officer to represent before ultimate finding is recorded and non- furnishing of the reasons to delinquent officer is fatal and vitiates the ultimate order of punishment. When it is the duty of the disciplinary authority to record the tentative reasons for not accepting the Enquiry Report and furnish the reasons to the delinquent officer and when the disciplinary authority has failed to do so, and imposed punishment, certainly it is violation of principles of natural justice. In view thereof, the Tribunal rightly set aside the punishment and directed the petitioners herein to pass appropriate orders granting the first respondent herein the consequential benefits and, therefore, the impugned order does not suffer from any illegality or infirmity. The writ petition is thus devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed. 5. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ___________________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J. _________________________ P.SWAROOP REDDY, J. 08th November 2010 CVRK [1] AIR 2001 SC 2398 [2] AIR 1998 SC 2713