IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU WRIT PETITION NO : 15901 of 2008 Between: The Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep by its Principal Secretary to Governemnt , Transport Roads and Buildings, (Vig.I.2) Department Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad. ..... PETITIONER AND Madhusudhana Rao Superintending Engineer (Retired) On Incharge basis R/o C/o I. enkateswara Rao Plot No. 16, Road No. 71, Jubili Hills, 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 issue a Writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of "Writ of Certiorari" calling for the records relating to the orders of the Hon'ble A.P. Admn. Tribunal, Hdyerabad passed in O.A. No. 5029/2006 dated 04-06-2007 as being erroneous, illegal and unreasonable and quash the same and pass such other order or orders. 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.15901 of 2008 ORDER: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice Ghulam Mohammed) This writ petition is ﬁled seeking to quash the order dated 04-6-2007 in O.A.No.5029 of 2006 on the ﬁle of Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad. 2. The respondent–applicant ﬁled the above O.A. challenging G.O.Rt.No.695, T. R&B (VIG.1.2) Department, dated 29-06-2006, wherein the Government had imposed on him, the punishment of one percent cut in pension for one year. The misconduct alleged against the applicant is that he had deviated from the procedure to help certain class of contractors. After regular departmental enquiry, the Enquiry Oﬃcer has submitted a report stating that the charge has not been proved. But, the Government issued Memo dated 29-8-2005 to the applicant stating that it has disagreed with the ﬁndings of the Enquiry Oﬃcer and asked the applicant to submit explanation. After considering the explanation and material on record, the Government issued the said G.O., which was set aside by the Tribunal. 3. Heard learned Government Pleader for petitioners and learned counsel appearing for ﬁrst respondent. 4. Learned Government Pleader contended that the applicant has unilaterally altered the terms of the contract to give beneﬁt to the contractors and he has not taken prior approval of the authority. 4. We have considered the rival contentions. Admittedly, the Enquiry Oﬃcer, after considering the material on record, held that the charge against the applicant was not proved. But, the Government sought to diﬀer with his ﬁndings and therefore issued a memo to the applicant. The Tribunal has categorically recorded the ﬁnding that there is no material to show that the applicant had deviated from the guidelines on the tender procedure in order to help certain contractors and the details of the beneﬁciaries have not been shown. Apart from this, the Government had not recorded the reasons either in the show cause notice or in the ﬁnal order, for diﬀering with the enquiry oﬃcer’s report. In the circumstances, we are not inclined to interfere with the impugned order passed by the Tribunal so as to dislodge its findings. 5. The writ petition fails and it is accordingly dismissed at the stage of admission. ___________________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J. ___________________ C.V.RAMULU, J. 24-07-2008 bsc