IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU WRIT PETITION NO : 1313 of 2006 Between: 1 The Special Chief Secretary to Government and Chief- Commissioner of Land Administration, Govt of A.P., Hyderabad 2 The District Collector, Kadapa , Kadapa District. 3 The District Supply Officer, Kadapa, Kadapa District. ..... PETITIONER(S) AND 1 N.Subrahmanyam, S/o.Narasaiah, Penagalur, Kadapa District. 2 A.Murali, District Manager, A.P.State Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd., Kadapa, Kadapa District. .....RESPONDENT(S) 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 A.P.Administrative Tribunal passed in O.A.No.3716/ 2000 with V.M.A.Nos.597/000 and 420/2004, dt.1-9-2004 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 : THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU W.P.No.1313 of 2006 ORDER: (per GHULAM MOHAMMED, J) This writ petition is ﬁled seeking to quash the orders dated 01-09-2004 in O.A.No.3716 of 2000 with V.M.A.Nos 597 of 2000 and 420 of 2004 on the ﬁle of the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad (for short “the Tribunal”). 2. The details relevant and necessary for deciding the writ petition are that the respondent was appointed as Typist in 1976 and subsequently, was promoted as Deputy Tahsildar. While he was working as such the Inspector of Police, Vigilance (Civil Supplies), Flying Squad, Tirupathi conducted a surprise check at M.L.S.P. Rayachoty and booked a case against the respondent alleging that material worth of Rs.12,000/-was found shortage. Then, the second petitioner initiated departmental enquiry against the respondent appointing the third petitioner as Inquiry Oﬃcer vide proceedings dated 22-10-1994 and issued charge memo on 2-7-1996. The respondent submitted his explanation, but, the disciplinary authority ordered for recovery of double the amount from the respondent with 12% interest per annum besides stoppage of two annual increments with cumulative eﬀect. Against the same, the respondent ﬁled appeal and same was rejected by the ﬁrst petitioner. Aggrieved by the same, the respondent ﬁled O.A. questioning the proceedings of the second petitioner dated 26- 02-1999 which was conﬁrmed by the ﬁrst petitioner vide proceedings dated 25-05-2000, wherein the respondent was imposed with punishment of stoppage of two annual increments with cumulative eﬀect besides recovery of Rs.12,000/-. The Tribunal after taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case and material on record, came to the conclusion that Rs.12,000/- towards the cost of loss would be recovered from the respondent with 6% per annum from the date of the inspection to the date of depositing the amount and with regard to the punishment of stoppage of two annual increments with cumulative eﬀect, the Tribunal set-aside the orders dated 26-02-1999 holding that without examining the witnesses, which the petitioners are required to do, as per Rule 20 of A.P. State and Subordinate Service Rules, the punishment was imposed. 3. Heard the learned Government Pleader for services-II appearing for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the respondent. 4. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and also submissions made by the learned counsel, we are of the considered opinion that the Tribunal has rightly found fault with the order dated 26-02-1999 holding that without examining the witnesses, the impugned order therein was passed and set-aside the impugned order to the extent of imposing punishment of stoppage of two annual increments with cumulative eﬀect. With regard to variation in essential commodities, the Tribunal ordered to recover the amount of Rs.12,000/-from the respondent with 6% interest per annum. It is stated that the respondent has already paid the amount of Rs.12,000/- as directed by the Tribunal. Therefore, we do not ﬁnd any irregularity or illegality in the orders passed by the Tribunal and the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. 5. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. ​ ________​______________ GHULAM MOHAMMED,J ____________ C.V.RAMULU,J 11-08-2008 Stp ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{TRR}