IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY NINTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 8577 of 2009 Between: P.J.F. Sunder Singh S/o.Krupanandam O/o. Assistant Director of Agriculture, Bhadrachalam, Khammam District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Government of Andhra Pradesh, represented by its Secretary to Government, Agriculture and Cooperation (VIG) (2) Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad. 2 The Commissioner and Director of Agriculture Government of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad. .....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 to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the G.O.Rt.No.466, Agriculture and Cooperation (VIG.1) Department dt. 8.5.2002 imposing punishment stoppage of (3) increments with cumulative effect and the Judgment dt. 3.4.2008 in O.A.No.6816/2002 on the file of the Hon'ble APAT is a illegal, null and void arbitrary, violative of principles of natural justice, discriminatory, without jurisdiction and subversive of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India and further opposed to law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and pass. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.CH.JAGANNADHA RAO Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR COOPERATION The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY W.P.No. 8577 of 2009 ORDER: (Per Ghulam Mohammed, J) This writ petition is filed challenging the order dated 3.4.2008 passed by the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad in O.A. No.6816 of 2002. 2. The petitioner is working as Sub Assistant (Agricultural Extension Officer) in the Agricultural Department since 1975. While so, in the year 1990, disciplinary proceedings initiated against the petitioner in respect of certain irregularities committed in the execution of works, which led to waste of public funds, failure to undertake works in accordance with the Rules and to maintain the necessary registers. The enquiry officer issued charge memo vide proceedings dated 8.11.1990 and the petitioner submitted his explanation on 6.12.1990. The Government issued a memo dated 27.5.1993 calling upon the petitioner to show cause as to why the punishment of stoppage of three annual grade increments with cumulative effect besides recovery of an amount of Rs.5,900-06ps shall not be imposed on him. The petitioner submitted his explanation to show cause notice on 19.8.1993. After 9 years i.e. 8.5.2002, the Government issued G.O.Ms.No.466 imposing punishment of stoppage of three increments with cumulative effect besides recovery of amount of Rs.5,900-06ps. Challenging the said G.O., the petitioner approached the Tribunal by filing O.A.No. 6816 of 2002. The Tribunal while dismissing the O.A., directed the first respondent to pass a specific order by reviewing the punishment awarded to the petitioner over and above the punishment awarded to the similarly situated employees. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed the present writ petition. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the Tribunal ought not to have held that the charges framed against the petitioner were not denied, as the contention of the petitioner all through is that he is not responsible for the alleged charges and the higher authorities are responsible for causing loss to the Government. The learned counsel further contended that the Tribunal has failed to notice that the charge sheet was issued in the year 1990 and the show cause notice was issued in the year 1993, and after a lapse of nine years, the Government passed G.O.R.T.No. 465 dated 8.5.2002. He lastly contended that the petitioner lost the opportunity of filing the appeal as the Government itself has imposed the above said punishment. 4. It is seen that the Tribunal has summoned the entire file leading to issue of G.O.Ms.No.466 and perused the same. The Tribunal observed that in the explanation submitted by the petitioner to the charge memo, he did not deny the charges in toto. He merely stated in the explanation that the charges framed against him do not pertain to his job. But in fact, the petitioner has committed grave irregularity by engaging outside labour, which is one of the charges in the charge memo. Further as far as delay in conducting the enquiry is concerned, no prejudice has been caused to the petitioner. As regards the losing the right of appeal, the Tribunal has remitted back the matter to the Government to review the order of punishment by exercising the power under Rule 38 of the A.P.C.S. (CC&A) Rules, 1993 over and above the punishment imposed on the similarly placed employees i.e. stoppage of one increment with cumulative effect. Therefore, we do not find any infirmity in the impugned order passed by the Tribunal so as to call for interference by this court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 5. The writ petition is devoid of merit and the same is accordingly dismissed. However, in the circumstances, the Government is directed to review the order within a period of two months from today. No costs. _____________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED,J _______________________ B.SESHASAYANA REDDY,J 29-04-2009 Stp ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1) 2 CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{KURR}