IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU WRIT PETITION NO : 15647 of 2008 Between: 1 The Government of A.P., Rep. by its Special Chief Secretary / Principal Secretary, Revenue Department Secretariat, Hyderabad 500 022 2 The Commissioner and Inspector General of Registration & Stamps, A.P., Hyderabad. ..... PETITIONER(S) AND P. Panduranga Rao, Sub-Registrar Grade - I, Presently Working as Chits Registrar, Secunderabad. .....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. Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad passed in O.A.No.8984/2001 dated 19.02.2008 as being erroneous, illegal and unreasonable and quash the same and pass Counsel for the Petitioners: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 :15647 of 2008 ORAL ORDER: (per GHULAM MOHAMMED, J) This writ petition is ﬁled seeking to quash the order dated 19-02- 2008 in O.A. No. 8984 of 2001 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 respondent ﬁled the above O.A. challenging the G.O. Rt. No.1937 dated 08-10-2001 by which the report dated 12-05-1998 exonerating him of the charges, was sought to be diﬀered and reviewed. The misconduct alleged against the respondent is that the A.C.B. oﬃcials noticed certain irregularities while he was discharging the duties as Sub-Registrar, Golconda. Thereafter, a regular enquiry was conducted. The Enquiry Oﬃcer submitted a report on 28-04-1998 and recorded the ﬁnding that “charges are not proved”. Based on the said report, the Deputy Inspector General of Registration & Stamps, Hyderabad issued proceeding No.G1/2598/96-1 dated 12-05-1998, exonerating the respondent of all the charges and in turn he had submitted a report to the 2nd petitioner. 3. The 2nd petitioner did not agree with the proceedings dated 12-05- 1998 and submitted the proposals to the Government on 12-10-1999 to review the matter under Rule 41 of A.P. Civil Services (CC&A) Rules,1991 (for short “the Rules”) and to issue appropriate orders. Thereafter, G.O.Rt.No.1937, revenue (Vig.I) Department, dated 08-10-2001 was issued to review the said proceedings dated 12-05-1998 under Rule 41 of the Rules. The Tribunal after considering the rival contentions held that the respondent is exonerated of the charges, and as such the power under Rule 41 of the Rules cannot be invoked for reviewing the earlier orders when there is no new material or evidence at the time of review. Hence, the writ petition is filed by the official petitioners. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the records. 5. The learned Government Pleader contended that though the G.O.was issued on 08-10-2001, the decision was taken to review the orders passed by the Deputy Inspector General, Registration & Stamps, Hyderabad Range, Hyderabad vide its Memo dated 30-3-2001 which is within the period of three years. The learned Government Pleader also vehemently contended that Rule 41 of the Rules empowers the Government to review the matter. 6. Admittedly, the respondent- applicant was issued charge memo and a regular departmental enquiry was conducted. The Enquiry Oﬃcer after perusing the material on record exonerated the delinquent oﬃcer of all the charges and accordingly submitted a report stating that the “charges are not proved”. While so, the Government at the instance of the head of the department sought to review the proceedings dated 12-05-1998 by which the delinquent oﬃcer was exonerated of the charges. Thereafter, the Government had disagreed with the report of the Enquiry Oﬃcer and issued second charge memo vide G.O.Rt.No.1937 dated 08-10-2001. It is to be noted that the Enquiry Oﬃcer had submitted report on 28-04-1998, whereas the Government had issued the said G.O. on 08-10-2001 i.e. after a gap of more than three years. The delay of three years has not been properly explained and this would prejudice the delinquent officer at this stage. 7. Further, the second charge memo is also based on the same set of facts . In fact, the Government has to record its reasons for disagreeing with the report of the disciplinary authority and communicate the same to the delinquent officer which appears to have not been done. 8. Coming to the power of the Government to review the order, a perusal of Rule 41 of the Rules discloses that Government has to review such order within a period of three years, but in the instant case, the Tribunal has recorded the ﬁnding that the G.O. was issued beyond the period of three years and no reasons have been recorded for reviewing such order. In fact, the Government has not shown any cause much less suﬃcient cause to relax the time limit of three years that too without recording reasons for diﬀering with the report of the disciplinary authority. The Tribunal rightly found that once charge memo was issued and enquiry was conducted by the disciplinary authority and report was submitted exonerating the respondent, the issuance of second charge memo on the same set of facts after lapse of more than three years, does not arise. In the circumstances, the impugned order does not call for any interference in exercise of writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 9. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed at the stage of admission. ______________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED,J ​ _____________ C.V.RAMULU, J 22-07-2008 Stp ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{KSRANI}