GOVERNMENT OF A P Vs. GHOUSIA BEGUM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The 1st respondent herein (for short 'the respondent') worked as lncharge Sub-Registrar at Bhongir in June, 2006. In relation to the registrations effected by her, during that tenure, the Anti-Corruption Bureau (A.C.B.) conducted a surprise check and submitted a report to the District Registrar, recommending departmental action against the 1st respondent. The allegation was that though a document is sale deed in its purport, stamp duty is levied by treating it as a deed of assignment. Similar allegations were made against four Sub-Registrars. An Enquiry Officer was appointed to enquire into the charges. He submitted a report on 24.06.2008, holding that the charge framed against the respondent was not proved. The disciplinary authority did not take any decision as such on the report of the enquiry officer. He appears to have forwarded the file to the Vigilance Department through the Commissioner and Inspector General, the 2nd petitioner herein. The 2nd petitioner, in turn, addressed letter dated 17-10-2008 to the Vigilance Commissioner, soliciting his opinion in the matter. Through his memo dated 09-02-2009, the Vigilance Commissioner requested the 2nd petitioner to communicate the disagreement factors on the report of the enquiry officer. Acting on the same, the 2nd petitioner issued a show cause notice, dated 08.03.2009 to the respondent, requiring her to explain as to why a different view be not taken on the finding recorded by the Enquiry Officer. On receipt of the notice, the respondent submitted her explanation. Not satisfied with that, the 2nd petitioner passed an order, dated 10.09.2009, imposing the punishment of stoppage of one increment, without cumulative effect.

(2.) The respondent challenged the said order by filing O.A. No. 7448 of 2010 before the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad. She pleaded various grounds, and pointed out procedural lapses. The O.A. was opposed by the petitioners. Through its order, dated 03.01.2013, the Tribunal allowed the O.A. and has set aside the order of punishment. Hence, this writ petition.

(3.) Learned Government for Services-II submits that being a superior authority, it is competent for the 2nd petitioner to examine the record and to differ with the findings of the enquiry officer. He contends that the Tribunal has verified the contents of the show cause notice issued by the 2nd petitioner, proposing to differ with the findings of the enquiry officer, as though it is an appellate authority, and on the sole ground that the reasons mentioned in the show cause notice are not proper; has set aside the order of punishment.