GOVT. OF A.P. Vs. V.VEERA REDDY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this batch of writ petitions, a common order, dated 29.02.2012 passed by the A.P. Administrative Tribunal in O.A.No.1967 of 2010 & batch is challenged. The facts, that gave raise to the filing of these writ petitions, are as under:

(2.) On receipt of the report, the 1st petitioner issued G.O.Rt.No.312, dated 28.02.2003 directing further enquiry. It was opined that some important aspects relating to the matter were not taken into account by the enquiry officer. One Mr. A.K.Srivasthava, I.P.S. was appointed as enquiry officer. However at a later stage, in the place of A.K.Srivasthava, Smt.Chandana Khan, I.A.S. was appointed as enquiry officer. A report was submitted on 19.12.2007 holding that all the charges against all the respondents herein are proved. Based upon that, the 1st petitioner intended to impose the punishment upon the respondents. Since all of them have retired from service, it was proposed to recover the amounts shown against their names and cut in a fraction of their pension. Challenging the show case notices as well as the enquiry report, the respondents filed the Original Applications before the Tribunal. Through common order, dated 29.02.2012, the Tribunal allowed the O.As. and set aside the report of the enquiry officer as well as the show cause memos. Hence, these writ petitions.

(3.) Learned Government Pleader for Services-I submits that there was no basis for the Tribunal to interfere with the report of the enquiry officer or show cause memos. He submits that it is only when a final order imposing any punishment is passed that the respondents could have approached the Tribunal. On merits, learned counsel submits that it is competent for the petitioners to direct "'further enquiry'" in exercise of power under Rule 21 of the Andhra Pradesh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1991 (for short 'the Rules') and that G.O.Rt.No.312, dated 28.02.2002, which was issued in this behalf was not challenged by the respondents. He submits that the enquiry officer, who submitted the report on 19.12.2007, has assigned cogent reasons in support of the conclusions reached by her.