IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE FOURTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G.BHAVANI PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO : 19158 of 2008 Between: The Government of A.P., rep. by its Principal Secretary to Government Municipal Administration & Urban Development Department, A.P., SEcretariat, Hyderabad. ..... PETITIONER AND Sri Annapureddy Sreerami Reddy R/o. Flat No. 103, Sri Rama Apartments, Ring Road, Gudmalkapur, Hyderabad. .....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 or direction more particularly one in the nature of " Writ Of Certiorari " calling for the records of the Hon'ble A.P.Administrative Tribunal passed in O.A.No. 204/2006, dated 14.12.2007 and consequently set aside the same by holding as erroneous, contrary to law and the rules and pass such order or orders the Hon'ble Counsel for the Petitioner:GP FOR SERVICES I Counsel for the Respondent No.: MR.S.SATYAM REDDY The Court made the following : ORDER: (Per Sri Justice GHULAM MOHAMMED) This Writ Petition has been ﬁled by the Government in the nature of Writ of Certiorari calling for the records pertaining to the order passed in O.A. No. 204 of 2006 dated 14.12.2007 on the ﬁle of Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad. O.A.No. 204 of 2006 was ﬁled by the applicant- respondent under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, seeking to set aside the G.O.Rt.No. 1597, M.A & U.D. Department dated 24.11.2005, wherein the punishment of 5% cut in the pension of the applicant- respondent for a period of two years has been imposed. O.A was allowed directing the applicant-petitioner to make a representation to the respondent within a period of one month for re-consideration of his case and the respondent was directed to consider the same and pass appropriate orders, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of the representation to be made by the applicant-respondent. Being aggrieved by the same, the Government preferred this Writ Petition. Brief facts of the case are that the applicant- respondent was initially appointed as Surveyor on 14.8.1964 and retired from service on 31.7.2001 as Director of Town and Country Planning. During the year 1999, the applicant worked as Chief City Planner of MCH and was over all in charge of Town Planning matters in the Head Oﬃce. The Chief City Planner is assisted by one Additional City Planner, one City Planner (Legal), two Assistant City Planners (Legal), one Assistant City Planner (Development), one Assistant City Planner (Enforcement) apart from a number of Town Planning Oﬃcials and other oﬃcers. In view of the fact that the duties of the Planning Department Oﬃcials are very demanding, the Commissioner, MCH has appointed a retired District Judge as consultant (Legal) and he has been entrusted with the responsibility of all legal matters. While so, a Charge Sheet has been issued to the applicant vide G.O.Ms.No. 428 M.A.& U.D (VI) Department dated 29.3.2003, alleging that he failed to supervise the work of his subordinates, and the applicant submitted his written statement. An enquiry oﬃcer was appointed as the charge framed against the applicant was held proved, a copy of the enquiry report has been furnished to the applicant vide memo dated 4.11.2004, he submitted a representation dated 29.12.2004 and as the same was not convincing, the Government after careful examination imposed punishment of withholding of 5% pension of the applicant for a period of two years under Rule 9 (2) of A.P. Revised Pension Rules, 1980 vide G.O.Rt.No. 1597 M.A& UD Department dated 24.11.2005. Aggrieved by the same, he filed O.A. Before the Tribunal, the learned counsel for the applicant contended that the respondent has mechanically imposed the punishment and once the applicant is not aware of either court case or the illegal construction made, he cannot be held responsible and the only reason for proceeding against the applicant and imposing a punishment is that the applicant has failed to monitor the court case and he contended that the court case ﬁle also never came to him. It is further contended that under Rule 9 of the A.P. Revised Pension Rules, the Government have a right to impose punishment on a retired Government employee. The allegation is only under the CCA Rules but not under Rule 9 of A.P. Revised Pension Rules. Therefore, the charge itself is illegal and therefore, the proceedings and punishment also have to be declared as illegal. On the other hand, the respondent ﬁled counter stating that the chare framed against the applicant was held proved and a copy of the enquiry report has been furnished to the applicant vide memo dated 4.11.2004 and the applicant submitted his representation dated 29.12.2004 and as the same was not convincing, the Government after careful examination and after obtaining the concurrence of the A.P.P.S.C., imposed punishment of with holding of 5% pension of the applicant for a period of two years under Rule 9 (2) of A.P. Revised Pension Rules, 1980 vide G.O.Rt.No. 1597 M.A dated 24.11.2005. The Tribunal after perusing the entire material on record and taking into consideration the judgment reported in INSPECTOR PREM CHAND VS. GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI[1] allowed the O.A. the relevant portion of the Supreme Court judgment extracted herein: “Error of judgment or negligence simplicities is not misconduct- In a given case what should have been done, depends on the facts and circumstances of the case and no hard-and fact rule can be laid down therefore. Misconduct means, misconduct arising from ill motive; acts of negligence, errors of judgment, or innocent mistake, do not constitute such misconduct (1959) 61 Bom. I.R. 1956 and 10 Guj.LR 23)” The Tribunal further held that the applicant- respondent is directed to make a representation in pursuance of this order to the petitioner within a period of one month for re-consideration of his case and the petitioner is directed to consider the same and pass appropriate orders, keeping in view the observations made therein within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of the representation to be made by the applicant-respondent. In view of the above, we do not see any reason to interfere with the observations made by the Tribunal. However, time is extended by six more weeks from today to dispose of the matter. Petitioner is directed to consider the representation made by the respondent and pass appropriate orders in accordance with the observations made in the O.A. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. _____________________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED ,J ___________________________ G.BHAVANI PRASAD, J Dt. 04.09.2008 KA ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1. 2CD copies [1] (2007) 4 SCC 566