IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE THIRTIETH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU WRIT PETITION NO : 24061 of 2006 Between: 1 Government of Andhra Pradesh rep by Secretary to Government Women Development, Child Welfare & Disabled Welfare Department A.P., Secretariat, Hyderabad. 2 The Director, Women Development, Child Welfare Department, Ameerpet, Hyderabad. 3 The Account General, A.P., Hyderabad. 4 The Sub-Treasury Officer, Kadiri, Anantapur District. ..... PETITIONER(S) AND Smt. M. Nagalakshmamma, Retired Child Development Project Officer, R/o. H.No. 11-306, Kadiri, Ananthapur District. .....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 an appropriate Writ, Order or direction more particularly one in the nature of "Writ of Certiorari" calling for the records relating to the orders of the Honourable A.P. Administrative Tribunal passed in OA No. 5279 of 2003, dt. 28-4-2006 as being erroneous, unreasonable and irregular and quash the same and pass such other order or orders as deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case Counsel for the Petitioner:GP FOR SERVICES II Counsel for the Respondent No.: . The Court made the following : HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU Writ Petition No.24061 of 2006 ORDER: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice Ghulam Mohammed) This writ petition is filed seeking to quash the order dated 28-4-2006 passed in O.A.No.5279 of 2003 on the file of Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad. 2. The respondent herein is the applicant while the petitioners herein are the respondents in the above O.A. It was alleged that the respondent while working as Child Development Project Officer had misappropriated the amounts, which were payable to Anganwadi workers, and not maintained the Accounts’ Registers properly. The charge-memo dated 26-8-1995 was issued to the respondent and she submitted her explanation on 25-9-1995 denying all the charges levelled against her. The Enquiry Officer conducted the enquiry and submitted his report stating that the charges are ‘not proved’ and recommended to drop further action. Thereafter, the disciplinary authority differed with the report of the Enquiry Officer and proposed to go ahead with the enquiry and issued show cause notice dated 10-10-2002. The respondent submitted her explanation once again and considering the same, the disciplinary authority imposed the penalty of 50% cut in the admissible pension vide G.O.Rt.No.259, Women Development, Child Welfare and Disabled Welfare (Estt.) Department, dated 04-7-2003. The respondent challenged the said G.O. by filing O.A. The Tribunal allowed O.A. and set aside G.O. and further directed the petitioners to release the pensionary benefits to the respondent forthwith. Hence, this writ petition is filed by official respondents. 3. Heard learned Government Pleader for the petitioners and learned counsel for the respondent and also perused the charges and the record 4. It is seen from the record that an Enquiry Officer has been appointed by the disciplinary authority. The Enquiry Officer has conducted an enquiry into the charges levelled against the respondent and submitted the report on 28-12-1998, wherein it was observed as follows: “ After careful scrutiny of the evidence let in by both sides reveals that there is no truth in the allegation of corruption made against the Accused officer and that some aggrieved Anganwadi workers have made false statement against her and they have not proved. I have, therefore, came to the conclusion that all the charges, levelled against her, have to be dropped.” Thus, the Enquiry Officer found the respondent not guilty and exonerated her of all the charges and recommended to drop further action in the matter. It is to be noted that the disciplinary authority did not agree with the findings of the Enquiry Officer and proceeded with the enquiry. A show cause notice was issued to the respondent and after considering her explanation, the disciplinary authority imposed the punishment of 50% cut in admissible pension. The Tribunal after perusing the show cause notice and the enquiry report has observed that the disciplinary authority has referred to certain findings of the Enquiry Officer in the show cause notice, which were found to be not a part of the enquiry report at all. In fact, Rule 21(1)(a) and (b) of the A.P. C.S. (CC&A) Rules mandates the disciplinary authority to communicate the delinquent employee about the decision to differ with the findings of the Enquiry Officer and after giving him the opportunity of filing written representation, it can take further action. It appears the respondent was not intimated about the grounds on which disciplinary authority wants to differ with the findings of the enquiry officer. The absence of such communication to the respondent and continuance of the enquiry, would cause prejudice to her. Apart from this, the disciplinary authority kept quiet for nearly four years after the submission of enquiry report in December, 1998 and issued the present show cause notice dated 10-10-2002. This delay has not been properly explained by the petitioners and it would also cause prejudice to the respondent. It is settled law that when the disciplinary authority is differing with the findings of the Enquiry Officer, it has to record its own findings supported by valid reasons and same has to be communicated to the delinquent employee, otherwise it would amount to violation of principles of natural justice. 5. In the instant case, the charges are petty and the amounts, which were allegedly misappropriated, were later adjusted. Further, the Enquiry Officer exonerated the respondent of all the charges framed against the delinquent employee and nearly four years thereafter, the disciplinary authority wanted to differ with the findings of the enquiry officer, which decision was not communicated to the respondent. Thus, it is clear that the disciplinary authority has not followed the procedure contemplated in the Rules. In the circumstances, we do not find any infirmity in the impugned order of the Tribunal. 6. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. __________________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J. ___________________ C.V.RAMULU, J. 30-06-2008 bsc ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{RLD}