IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE FOURTEENTH 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 : 24251 of 2007 Between: 1 The Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Secunderabad Division, Secunderabad. 2 The Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad. 3 The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep by its Principal Secretary, Revenue (Vig.I) Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad. ..... PETITIONER(S) AND U. Bhoomaiah, Junior Assistant, Office of the C.T.O., Abids Circle, 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 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, Hyderabad passed in OANo. 1/2006 dated 07-6-2007 as being erroneous, illegal and unreasonable and quash the same and pass such otehr order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem ﬁt and proper in the circumstances of the case 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.24251 of 2007 ORDER: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice Ghulam Mohammed) This writ petition is ﬁled seeking to quash the order dated 07-6-2007 passed in O.A.No.1 of 2006 on the ﬁle of Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad. 2. The respondent herein ﬁled the above O.A. challenging the Memo dated 22-11-2005 issued by third petitioner herein, by which the Government suo motu exercised the powers under Rule 40(i) of A.P. Civil Services (CCA) Rules, 1991 and decided to enhance the punishment to that of postponement of three annual grade increments with cumulative eﬀect. The misconduct alleged against the respondent, among others, is that the ACB oﬃcials found him indulging in corrupt activity of collecting money from the drivers of the lorries passing through the check post. A charge-memo was issued, to which the respondent submitted the explanation. After regular departmental enquiry, the Enquiry Oﬃcer submitted his report on 23-6- 1997 exonerating the respondent of all the charges. The disciplinary authority had appointed second Enquiry Oﬃcer, which was challenged in O.A.No.7238 of 2000 and the same was allowed on 10-10-2001 setting aside the appointment of second Enquiry Oﬃcer and to pass appropriate orders on the basis of report of the ﬁrst Enquiry Oﬃcer dated 23-6- 1997. Thereafter, the disciplinary authority imposed the punishment of ‘censure’ vide its order dated 24-7-2003, which was not questioned. While so, the Government had issued show cause notice proposing to enhance the punishment and after considering the representation of the respondent, issued the Memo impugned in O.A. The Tribunal after considering the rival contentions, allowed O.A. and set aside the said Memo. Hence, this writ petition is ﬁled by the oﬃcial respondents in O.A. 3. Heard learned Government Pleader appearing for the petitioner and perused the record. 4. A perusal of the record shows that a regular departmental enquiry was conducted against the respondent and the Enquiry Oﬃcer found that the respondent was not guilty of the charges and therefore exonerated him and accordingly submitted a report. Further, the disciplinary authority had appointed second Enquiry Oﬃcer perhaps to see that the respondent is somehow punished. But, such action was challenged and the same was disallowed by the Tribunal and the disciplinary authority was given liberty to impose punishment, if any, on the basis of the enquiry report initially submitted. The disciplinary authority had imposed the punishment of ‘censure’ on the respondent. Subsequently, the Government issued show cause notice proposing to enhance the punishment. The Tribunal had categorically recorded that the Government sought to enhance the punishment on the ground that the charges are grave, that too without any reasons. When once the punishment of ‘censure’ was imposed pursuant to the report of first Enquiry Officer, the Government cannot exercise suo motu powers for enhancing the punishment without any justiﬁable cause or recording the reasons for disagreeing with the ﬁndings of the disciplinary authority. The order impugned in O.A. suﬀers from non-assigning of reasons and non-application of mind. In the foregoing circumstances, we are not inclined to exercise the power of judicial review and interfere with the impugned order. 5. In the result, the writ petition is dismissed at the stage of admission. ___________________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J. ___________________ C.V.RAMULU, J. 14-08-2008 bsc