HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED AND HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD WRIT PETITION No : 6652 of 2010 O R D E R: (per Hon'ble Sri Justice Ghulam Mohammed) The petitioner assails the legality and validity of the order, dated 24.02.2009 in O.A.No. 7240 of 2006 on the file of the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal. The case of the petitioners, in brief, is as follows: The District Panchayat Officer, Mahabubnagar, petitioner No.3 in his letter dated 22.10.1994 has reported to the Commissioner of Panchayat Raj and Rural Employment, Hyderabad, the 2nd petitioner, about the irregularities committed by Respondent No.1 and accordingly, issued a show cause notice on11.08.1994, but no explanation has been submitted by the 1st respondent. Based on the report, the Commissioner of Panchayat Raj and Rural Employment, Andhra Pradesh, has appointed the Divisional Panchayat Officer, Gadwal as Enquiry Officer to conduct enquiry into the said irregularities, vide proceedings, dated 10.03.1995. The Enquiry Officer has framed charges against the 1st respondent on 15.06.1995 and as he refused to receive the said charge memo, the Enquiry Officer has conducted an ex parte enquiry and submitted his report to the 2nd petitioner, vide letter dated 27.06.1995, holding that all the charges were held proved and recommended to impose a punishment of reduction to a lower post for a period of two years besides recovery of Rs.2,42,270/-. The 2nd petitioner, after examining the enquiry report, has framed nine charges against the 1st respondent on 24.11.1995, for which, he has submitted his explanation. Thereafter, the 2nd petitioner directed the Enquiry Officer to verify with reference to his explanation. On verification of the facts, the Enquiry Officer submitted his report. The 2nd petitioner has examined the enquiry report in the light of the explanation of the delinquent officer and held that all the charges except charges 3 and 9 are proved and arrived at a conclusion to impose a penalty of dismissal from service besides recovery of an amount of Rs.81,146/- from the 1st respondent. Therefore, the 1st respondent has submitted his representation to the Commissioner on 07.03.1998, denying the charges. The Commissioner after hearing the delinquent personally, confirmed the provisional decision and accordingly, he, through his letter, dated 31.08.1998, submitted necessary proposals to Government for dismissal of the 1st respondent. In the meanwhile, the 1st respondent retired from service on 31.10.1998, on attaining the age of superannuation. As the employee retired from service, the Government has decided to impose the punishment of withholding the entire pension and DCRG, under Rule 9(1) of the A.P. Revised Pension Rules,1980 and accordingly, called for his explanation vide show cause notice dated 17.04.1999. Since the delinquent officer has not submitted his explanation, the Government issued orders imposing the penalty of 100% cut in pension besides withholding his entire D.C.R.G. vide G.O.Rt.No. 455, dated 21.03.2002 apart from direction to the District Panchayat Officer, Mahabubnagar for filing a criminal case against the delinquent officer before the S.H.O. concerned vide Govt. Memo dated 19.02.2002. Aggrieved by the same, though he delinquent officer filed a review, the same was rejected vide Govt. memo dated 19.05.2006. Subsequently, the 1st respondent herein filed O.A.No. 137 of 2006 in the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal and the said O.A. was disposed of with certain directions. Later, he again filed O.A.No. 7240 of 2006 before the Tribunal seeking suspension of the operation of the proceedings, dated 19.05.2006 and the orders passed in G.O.Rt.No. 455, dated 21.03.2002 and to direct the respondents to release the provisional pension. The Tribunal, through its order dated 24.02.2009 set aside the impugned memo dated 19.05.2006 and directed the respondents to comply with the directions issued in O.A.No. 137 of 2006 and pass appropriate orders by looking into the report of the District Panchayat Officer. Till such orders are passed by the 1st respondent, they shall comply with the earlier directions given with respect to the provisional pension to the applicant till passing of final orders based on the report of the District Panchayat Officer and thus remanded the matter to the 1st respondent therein for fresh consideration. The grievance of the petitioners is that the Tribunal has erred in allowing and remanding O.A. for fresh consideration. It is represented by the learned Government Pleader that the impugned order dated 19.05.2006 suffers from legal infirmities. Admittedly, challenging the order in O.A.No. 137 of 2006, no writ petition has been filed. Further, the Tribunal, through the order passed in O.A.No. 7240 of 2006, remanded the matter for fresh consideration after going through the report of the District Panchayat Officer and directed the respondents therein to comply with the directions issued in O.A.No. 137 of 2006. We are of the opinion that the Tribunal has rightly remitted the matter to the revisional authority to reconsider the matter afresh after considering the report of the District Panchayat Officer. We do not find any infirmity so as to warrant interference with the order of the Tribunal. The representation of the 1st respondent shall be disposed of by the Government in accordance with law within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. With this, the Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs. ---------------------------- (GHULAM MOHAMMED,J) ----------------------------- (G. BHAVANI PRASAD, J) 15th April 2010 ksld 1. ..... REGISTRAR 2. // TRUE COPY // 3. SECTION OFFICER To 4. 1) 2 CD copies 5. Form-NIC-OGS/WP{BMR} 3rd August 2009 ksld