IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU WRIT PETITION NO : 12953 of 2008 Between: Syed Rasool, S/o. Syed Yakub, O/O. The Mandal Revenue Officer, Utnur, R/o. H.No. 8-47, Momenpure Street, Utnur, Adilabad District - 504 311. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Revenue, Secretariat, Hdyerabad. 2 The Chief Commissioner of Land Administration, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Abids, Hyderabad. 3 The District Collector, Adilabad District, Adilabad. .....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 any Writ order or direction particularly one in the nature of Certiorari calling for the records in connection with the order dated 31- 1-2007 O.A.No. 292 of 2007 and by quashing the same as well as order of the 3rd respondent in Proceedings No. D.Dis.Proc.No. A2/3680/95 dated 12-01-2006 of imposing punishment of Censure and also further proceedings No. LDis.No. A2/557/2006 dated 27-02-2006 directing the applicant to make a leave application for regularization of suspension period i.e., from 27-05-1995 to 06-10-1995 as illegal, arbitrary, bad in law, voilative of Art. 14 of the Constitution of India and consquentially direct the Respondent to treat the period of suspension of the applicant as on duty for purposes extending monetary benefits and terminal benefits and pass Counsel for the Petitioner:DR.P.B.VIJAY KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR SERVICES II The Court made the following : HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU Writ Petition No.12953 of 2008 ORDER: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice Ghulam Mohammed) The writ petition seeks to quash the order dated 31-7-2007 in O.A.No.292 of 2007 on the file of Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad, and the proceedings of third respondent dated 12-01-2006 imposing the punishment of ‘censure’ and further proceedings dated 27-2-2006 asking the petitioner herein to make an application seeking leave for regularisation of the period of suspension. 2. The petitioner while working as Senior Assistant in the Office of Mandal Revenue Officer, Utnur, Adilabad, was alleged to have committed misconduct of unauthorised absence and failing to discharge the official duties. The official respondents have conducted the regular disciplinary proceedings and the enquiry Officer submitted his report stating the charge against the petitioner that he has failed to attend ROR working in MRO’s office, as proved. Basing on the enquiry report, the District Collector, Adilabad, vide proceedings dated 12-1-2006 imposed the punishment of ‘censure’ and asked him to apply for leave to regularise the period of suspension. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner preferred O.A. before the Tribunal. The Tribunal dismissed the O.A. observing that the petitioner has not availed the appeal remedy and directly approached the Tribunal. 3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader. 4. In the instant case, the petitioner was found guilty of the second charge i.e. failing to attend the work of ROR and preparation of pattadar passbooks and title deeds. The third respondent herein after taking into consideration the gravity of the charge, had taken a lenient view and imposed the punishment of ‘censure’, which is a minor penalty. When once the punishment of ‘censure’ is awarded, the authority ought not to have directed the petitioner to apply for leave to regularise the period of suspension. The authority itself has taken a lenient view and awarded minor punishment of ‘censure’. In the circumstances, there is no justification for the authority to ask the petitioner to apply for leave to regularise the period of suspension and in case the same is done, we are of the considered opinion that it amounts to imposing the major penalty. Further, the petitioner has retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation. The period of suspension of the petitioner shall be treated as ‘on duty’. The order of the authority in directing the petitioner to apply for leave etc., goes beyond the punishment itself and any decision taken treating the petitioner as not on duty or leave with pay or without pay or half pay would amount to imposing a second punishment while taking a lenient view in imposing the punishment of ‘censure’. Therefore, we are of the opinion that the impugned order passed by the Tribunal is liable to be set aside and is accordingly set aside and the O.A. shall stand ‘ordered’ accordingly. 5. The writ petition is accordingly allowed. No order as to costs. __________________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J. ___________________ C.V.RAMULU, J. 23-06-2008 bsc ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{SPJS}