THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED and THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.G. SHANKAR WRIT PETITION No.6538 and 32943 of 2010 Between: The Government of A.P. .... PETITIONER(S) AND .....RESPONDENT(S) THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED and THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.G. SHANKAR WRIT PETITION No.6538 and 32943 of 2010 Common Order : (per HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED) 1) The State filed Writ Petition 6538 of 2010 challenging the order dated 31-12-2009 in O.A.No.7293 of 2006 passed by the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad whereby and whereunder the Tribunal allowed the O.A. partly by reducing the punishment of stoppage of four increments with cumulative effect to that of stoppage of two increments with cumulative effect. The applicant in O.A.No.7293 of 2006 has also filed Writ Petition NO.32943 of 2010 challenging the order of the Tribunal insofar as not allowing the O.A. setting aside the punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority in the given circumstances of the case. 2) The brief facts of the case that led to filing of these writ petitions are that the Anti Corruption Bureau in its preliminary report dated 11-3-1999 while furnishing it to the Government through Vigilance Commission has stated that one T. Suryanarayana while working as Regional Transport Officer, Vizianagarm demanded a bribe amount of Rs.1000/- from one A.Sai Vara Prasad, Private Transport Operator, Vizianagaram for issue of Registration Certificate and entrusted the mater to S. Anjaneyulu, Senior Assistant office of the Regional Transport Officer, Vizianagaram, (herein after referred to as “the applicant”), to receive the bribe amount. 3) Subsequently, a charge memo was issued against the applicant and having not satisfied with the explanation, the matter was entrusted to the Commissionerate of Inquiries by appointing Inquiry Officer to conduct a regular inquiry. On receipt of the inquiry report the Government taken a provisional decision to impose the major penalty against the applicant and show cause notice was issued to him calling for his further explanation. As the explanation was not convincing, the Government imposed the punishment of stoppage of four increments with cumulative effect against the applicant vide G.O.Rt.No.1164 dated 17-11-2005. 4) Aggrieved by the orders issued in G.O.Rt.No.1164 dated 17-11-2005 in imposing punishment on him, the applicant filed O.A.No.7293 of 2006 before the Tribunal. The Tribunal on adjudication of the matter, allowed the O.A. in part by reducing the punishment of stoppage of four increments with cumulative effect to that of stoppage of two increments with cumulative effect on the ground that though he accepted money on behalf of the Regional Transport Officer, it is not the case of the disciplinary authority that the respondent demanded the money for doing official favour. The relevant portion of the order of the Tribunal reads as under : “ The story of the disciplinary authority is that the applicant did not demand the money from the complainant, but he obliged the Regional Transport Officer for accepting the bribe amount payable to him on his behalf and due to that he was traped and the amount was recovered from the applicant. Though he accepted money on behalf of Regional Transport Officer, it is not the case of the disciplinary authority that the applicant demanded the money for doing official favour. Therefore, by taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that the punishment of stoppage of four increments with cumulative effect is on higher side. Therefore, I am inclined to reduce the said punishment to that of stoppage of two increments with cumulative effect.” 5) Learned counsel for the applicant contends that Suryanarayana, who is the RTO has been let off only with 5% cut in his pension and thereafter he approached the Tribunal by filing O.A. and that the Tribunal set aside the punishment order by its judgment dated 24-11-2009 in O.A.No.6901 of 2006 thereafter the Government issued orders in G.O.Rt.No.1030 dated 9-11-2010 rescinding the judgment of the Tribunal and directed to release full pensionary benefit to the said Suryanarayana. It is the contention of the counsel for the applicant that once RTO has been exonerated, it would be a miscarriage of justice if the applicant is proceeded against and imposed any punishment. On the other hand, learned Government Pleader for service fairly contended that the Tribunal in the given factual circumstances ought not to have interfered with the functions of the disciplinary authority by modifying the quantum of punishment. 6) Having heard the learned counsel on either side, and on perusal of the order under challenge, we are of the view that the court ought not to have interfered with the quantum of punishment unless the punishment awarded was one which shocked the conscience of the court, and even then, the court would remit the matter back to the authority and would not normally substitute one punishment for the other. The Tribunal while confirming the findings of the 1st respondent- authority regarding misconduct of the applicant, reduced the quantum of punishment, instead of remitting the matter back to the disciplinary authority. On this ground itself, without expressing any further opinion on the merits of the matter, we are inclined to set aside the order under challenge and remit back the matter to the disciplinary authority for imposing the appropriate punishment considering the contentions of both the parties including contention of the applicant that the main offender has been exonerated, as per law. 7) Accordingly, both the writ petitions stand allowed to the extent indicated above. No costs. ________________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J. ________________ K.G.SHANKER, J. 29-6--2011 KK THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED and THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.G. SHANKAR WRIT PETITION No.6538 of 2010 and 32943 of 2010 29-6-2011