HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED AND HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD WRIT PETITION No. 6352 of 2010 Between: Additional Director General of Police (Admn) Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad and two others ..... PETITIONERS AND V.T. Srinivas Jr. Assistant, O/o The Superintendent of Police , Government Railway Police Secunderabad and one another .....RESPONDENTS ORDER: (Per Hon'ble Sri Justice Ghulam Mohammed) This Writ Petition has been filed in the nature of Writ of Certiorari calling for the records pertaining to order dated 30.10.2009 passed in O.A.No. 5032 of 2005 by the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad and quash the same as illegal and arbitrary. By the above order, the Tribunal has allowed the O.A and set aside the order of punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority as confirmed by the appellate authority with regard to punishment of postponement of increments for three years with cumulative effect on future increments and pension with immediate effect. Brief facts of the case are that the first respondent herein is the applicant in O.A., who is working as a Junior Assistant in the Office of Superintendent of Police, Government Railways Police, Secunderabad assails the disciplinary proceedings of Superintendent of Police, Railways dated 18.10.2001 whereunder he was found guilty for the misconduct covered by the charge memo and imposed a penalty of postponement of increment for three years with cumulative effect on future increments and pension and this was confirmed by the appellate authority and Revisional Authority. Aggrieved by the same, the applicant preferred O.A and the same was allowed by following the ratio laid down in SURATH CHANDRA CHAKRAVARTY VS., THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL[1] and also ratio laid down by the Supreme Court in ROOP SINGH NEGI VS. PUNJAB NATINAL BANK AND OTHERS[2]. Feeling aggrieved by the same, the present Writ Petition has bee preferred by the Government. The learned Government Pleader for Services-I appearing for the petitioners contended that in a disciplinary proceedings the area of interference is very narrow and limited and unless the findings reached at by the Inquiry Officer are perverse, the Court cannot interfere with the findings but the Tribunal exceeded its limits and set aside the impugned order passed by the appellate authority, which is illegal. He also contended that the finding of the Tribunal is impermissible under law, as the Tribunal decided the matter while sitting as an appellate authority holding that the imposition of punishment is invalid when the Inquiry Officer held that the charges were proved against the delinquent officer. On the other hand, Mr. Vijaya Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the first respondent submitted that the charge framed against the first respondent-applicant is very vague and no details are available with regard to date, time, place and person and in the absence of the same, the Tribunal has rightly relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court reported in SURATH CHANDRA CHAKRAVARTY VS. THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL (supra-1) and set aside the impugned order passed by the Superintendent of Police, Railways in proceedings dated 18.10.2001 and the order of the appellate authority dated 29.7.2001. Hence, there are no grounds to interfere with the order passed by the Tribunal and the Writ Petition is liable to be dismissed. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for both sides and perused the material made available on record. As seen from the record the Superintendent of Police, Railways, Secunderabad issued a charge memo framing the charge against the applicant, which reads as under: “That the Jr. Assistant, Sri V. T. Srinivas of RPO/Sec’bad is working in B3 Section and he also instructed to prepare pay fixation bills in RSP 1999 while preparation of pay fixation bill of Sri B. Manohar, SIPP, Hyd grossly neglected by omitting claim HRA with a modified intention. Further the SI Sri B. Manohar of RPS/Hyd requested in person with Sri V.T. Srinivas, Jr. Asst., for sending Arogya Bhadrata Health Card for getting medical check up under the Arogya Bhadrata Scheme, but he did not response at lost as there is no way the above SI approached with the officer (SRP/Sec’bad) and the SRP/Sec’bad clearly instructed to Sri V.T. Srinivas, B3 and Supdt., ‘B’ orally. After coming out from the officer chamber Sri V.T. Srinivas, used unparliamentarily words saying myself and my wife the words which he used filthy language witnessed by Sri Vijaya Kumar, RPC 314 working as Sharaff in RPO/Sec’bad. Thus, Sri V.T. Srinivas, grossly neglected in preparation of PF bill in respect of SI with a malafide intention and is being the incharge of B3 section Assistant language which he used in valgour which are reprehensible and highly objectionable on his part.” The Enquiry Officer in his report observed as under: “I have gone through the articles of charge/statement of imputation, connected records, evidence of PWs and written statement of defence submitted by the delinquent Sri V.T. Srinivas carefully. I find that the eye witness Sri Vijaya Kumar shorff of PRC-SC had heard the words (unparliamentary) words spoken by the delinquent (Jr.Asst. of PRO-SC) Sri V.T. Srinivas Jr.Asst. of RPO –SC with Prabhakar Jr. Asst of PRO-SC against the petitioner Sri B. Manohar SIRP-Hyderabad but he could not say the date of incident at the time of oral enquiry conducted by the EO. At the time of preliminary enquiry also the DSRP-SC had failed to record the statement of Sri Prabhakar Jr. Assistant of PO-SC. On the above all versions of the witness I concluded that the allegations leveled against the delinquent as ‘proved’”. The Disciplinary Authority in his order dated 18.10.2001 did not discuss the evidence and simply accepted the finding of the enquiry officer. The relevant portion reads as under: ‘I have gone through the memorandum of Charge/Minutes of the E.O., further written statement of defence of the delinquent and connected records. After careful examination of the case in detail, the explanation of the delinquent is not at all convincing since it is an after thought. However, I take a lenient view and I award him the punishment of postponement of increments for three years with cumulative effect on future increments and pension with immediate effect.” Appellate authority also done the same thing as was done by the Disciplinary Authority. The relevant portion of the order dated 29.7.2002 reads as under: “ I have gone through the entire O.E file connected records and appeal petition of the appellant. The appellant Sri V.T. Srinivas, Jr.Assistant has not brought forth any fresh point to prove his innocence in his appeal petition.” We have perused the report of Enquiry Officer. The Enquiry Officer has examined the matter elaborately and submitted his report. His report is based on some criterion and held that the charge against the delinquent officer is proved. The settled preposition of law is while exercising the judicial review; this court cannot exercise the appellate jurisdiction as that of the disciplinary authority. It is for the disciplinary authority to impose appropriate punishment to the delinquent employee on the basis of the enquiry report furnished by the Enquiry Officer. The area of interference is very limited. Unless the report of the Enquiry Officer is based on no evidence or the findings reached at by the enquiry officer are perverse this Court cannot interfere with the findings of the disciplinary authority. We have gone through the report of the Enquiry Officer. There is some basis for the Enquiry Officer to come to such a conclusion. This Court while exercising judicial review cannot interfere with the adequacy or inadequacy and efficiency or inefficiency of the material on the basis of which the Enquiry Officer’s report is based on. In our considered view, the findings recorded by the Tribunal by setting aside the proceedings with regard to the punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority, which is confirmed by the appellate authority, are perverse and the Tribunal exceeded its jurisdiction, which is impermissible under law. In the circumstances, the order passed by the Tribunal in setting aside the proceedings dated 18.10.2001 of the Superintendent of Police, Railways and also the order dated 29.7.2002 of the appellate authority, is quashed and accordingly set aside. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED,J __________________________ G. BHAVANI PRASAD, J DATE: 22/03/2010 KA ….... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1. 2 CD copies. [1] AIR 1971 SC 752 [2] (2009) 2 SCC 570