THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD WRIT PETITION No.6341 of 2010 ORDER: (Per GMJ) This writ petition is filed seeking to quash the order dated 05.02.2009 passed by the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad, (for short ‘the Tribunal’) in O.A.No.5530 of 2001 filed by the first respondent aggrieved by the proceedings dated 15.06.2001 issued by the first petitioner imposing a penalty of withholding of three annual grade increments with cumulative effect under Rule 9(iv) of the Andhra Pradesh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1991 (‘1991 Rules’ for short) besides recovery of Rs.44,354/-. The brief facts of the case are that while the first respondent was working as the Assistant Director of Sericulture, Kadiri and Ongole, disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him in the year 1986 alleging that he involved in financial and procedural irregularities while undertaking repairs to new refrigerators and implementing S.C. action plan and he was placed under suspension. Charges were framed against him. An enquiry officer was appointed and he submitted enquiry report. However, the disciplinary proceedings could not be concluded due to the administrative reasons. The first respondent submitted his explanation to the enquiry report. Thereafter, the petitioners imposed a punishment of reversion to lower cadre besides recovery of Rs.1,43,382/-, vide order dated 01.04.1998. Aggrieved by the same, the first respondent filed O.A.No.3039 of 1998, which was disposed of by the Tribunal at the admission stage on 01.07.1998, whereby the order dated 01.04.1998 was set aside observing as under: “In all fairness the Disciplinary Authority, the 1st respondent, should have communicated his findings, which were really grave and required the applicant to explain, indicating the proposed punishment also. It is considered that issuing of the impugned orders without following even this requirement is violation of the CCA Rules and the impugned proceedings are liable to be set aside straight away. Accordingly, the impugned orders dt.01.04.1998 of the 1st respondent are hereby set aside and the matter is remanded to the first respondent with a direction to follow the APCS (CCA) Rules and to finalize the disciplinary matter denovo, giving the opportunity to the applicant as per rules, to explain the position, supplying the basis of the conclusions arrived at.” Subsequently, the petitioners issued a show cause notice dated 15.06.1999 to the first respondent, to which he filed a reply dated 19.01.2000 denying the charges levelled against him. The Tribunal, reconsidering the matter, imposed a punishment of stoppage of three annual grade increments with cumulative effect besides recovery of Rs.44,354/- being the loss to the Government, vide proceedings dated 15.06.2001, which were challenged in O.A.No.5530 of 2001. By impugned order dated 05.02.2009, the Tribunal disposed of O.A.No.5530 of 2001 along with V.M.A.No.673 of 2001 and O.A.No.9762 of 2008. The relevant paragraphs of the impugned order read as under: “This Tribunal, without going into any contentions raised by the learned counsel for the applicant, decide this matter according to the settled proposition of Law as laid down in the case of STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH VS. DR. K.RAMACHANDRAN[1] reported in 1998 (1) SUPREME 320 wherein it has been held as follows: “5. It is apparent that at the relevant rime, when the disciplinary proceedings were started against the respondent, the government had no jurisdiction to hold departmental proceedings for the misconduct committed by the respondent. It had no choice except to refer the case to the Tribunal. Section 4 of the Act which was in mandatory terms was amended by Andhra Pradesh Act 6 of 1993 and the word “shall” occurring in Section 4 was replaced by the word “may”, which gave a discretion to the Government to refer or not to refer the matter to the Tribunal. Section 4 A which was inserted in the Principal Act by the same amending Act, namely, Andhra Pradesh Act 6 of 1993, gave power to the Government to withdraw at any stage, any case from the Tribunal before its conclusion. This, again indicates that the choice to refer or not to refer the case to the Tribunal for disciplinary proceedings or to withdraw any case already referred to the Tribunal, became available to the Government only after the amendment of the principal Act by Act 6 of 1993.” In the instant case, the enquiry officer was appointed by the disciplinary authority on 26.05.1987 and 20.11.1990 wherein the Government has no jurisdiction to appoint enquiry officer and it was bound by the Statute i.e., AP Civil Services (Disciplinary Proceedings Tribunal) Act, 1960. In the light of the aforesaid decision of the Apex Court, the enquiry has to be held as ab initio void and accordingly, set aside. Having regard to the facts and circumstances, OAs are allowed. The impugned orders are set aside. However, this order shall not preclude the disciplinary authorities from proceeding against the applicant in accordance with Rules. VMA is dismissed.” The Apex Court in Ramachanran’s case (supra) held that it was mandatory for the Government to refer the disciplinary cases to the Tribunal and penalty imposed by the State Government without referring the case to the Tribunal was without jurisdiction and invalid. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the impugned order and the case law, we are of the considered opinion that the Tribunal, rightly, following the decision of the Apex Court supra, allowed the O.A.No.5530 of 2001 since the enquiry officer was appointed by the disciplinary authority. Therefore, the impugned order does not warrant interference by this Court. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs. _______________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J ____________________ G. BHAVANI PRASAD, J 22nd March, 2010 GHN [1] (1998) 4 SCC 82