IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI THURSDAY, THE TWENTIETH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MS JUSTICE B. S. BHANUMATHI WPfAT) NO: 261 OF 2022 Between: T. Govardhan, S/o. Bheemsena Achar, aged 59 years, Retired Joint Director (Hydrology), A.P. Ground Water Department, Vijayawada, Krishna District. ...PETITIONER AND 1. The Director, Ground Water Department, A.P., Vyshya Bhavan, Besides Government General Hospital, Hanumanpet, Vijayawada, Krishna District. 2. The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Principal Secretary, Irrigation and Command Area Department, A.P. Secretariat Buildings, Velagapudi, Amaravathi, Vijayawada, Krishna District. ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to set aside G.O. Ms. No. 122, Water Resources (Vigilance- 1/A1) Department dated 23-11-18 where under the applicant was imposed with major penalty of 1 percent cut in pension permanently declaring it as illegal, arbitrary, violative of Principles of Natural Justice .disproportionate and consequentially direct the respondents to release the full pension as well as promote the applicant as Joint Director with retrospective effect. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI K. R. SRINIVAS Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR SERVICES III The Court made the following: ORDER APHC010257922022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3311] Thursday, the Twentieth day of March Two Thousand and Twenty Five Present The Honourable Ms Justice B.S.Bhanumathi Writ Petition Transfered From APAT No: 261 of 2022 Between: T Govardhan ...petitioner and The Director, Ground Water Department Andhra Pradesh and another ...respondents Counsel for the petitioner: 1.K R Srinivas Counsel for the respondents: I.G.P. for Services III The Court made the following: 2 WP(AT).No.261 of 2022 0^ ORDER: The writ petition is originally filed before the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal vide O.A.No.2748 of 2018. After transfer of the case to this Court, it was numbered as W.P.(AT).No.261 of 2022. The writ petition is filed seeking following relief: “...to set aside G.O.Ms.No.122 Water Resources (Vigilance- I/A1) Department, dated 23.11.2018 where under the applicant was imposed with major penalty of 1% cut in pension permanently declaring it as illegal arbitrary violative of principles of natural justice disproportionate and consequentially direct the respondents to release the full pension as well as promote the applicant as Joint Director with retrospective effect and pass...” 02. The case of the writ petitioner is briefly as follows: The petitioner was appointed on 12.07.1982 in the department of the 1®‘ respondent. He was permitted to take voluntary retirement from service w.e.f. 31.01.2018. He put up nearly 36 years of service with unblemished record. However, the 1 St respondent, through G.O.Rt.No.1197, dated 21.07.2009, framed four charges against the petitioner, for which the petitioner submitted his explanation on 06.08.2009. Thereafter, enquiry was conducted and report was submitted by the inquiry officer on 30.10.2010 holding that all four charges were not proved. However, the 1®‘ respondent issued a memo dated 09.05.2011 differing from the findings of the inquiry officer insofar as the first charge and called for explanation of the petitioner. The petitioner submitted the explanation on 24.05.2011. Not satisfying with the explanation, the 1^‘ respondent imposed major penalty of stoppage 3 \A/P(AT).No.261of2022 of one annual grade increment with cumulative effect on his pension vide G.O.Ms.No.133, dated 17.10.2012. Thereafter, the petitioner filed O.A.No.1620 of 2013 before the Tribunal questioning the said punishment. The said application was transferred to the High Court of Telangana vide W.P.(TR).No.345 of 2017. It was disposed on 26.07.2017 with the following direction: “Since the order is set aside on the ground of violation of mandate of Rule 21, the court is inclined to remit the matter to the disciplinary authority to the stage of consideration of the explanation submitted by the petitioner on the Dissent Note dated: 9-5-2011 to consider the explanation submitted by the petitioner and to pass final orders by assigning reasons in support of decision within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. It is needless to state that all other issues are left upon for petitioner to agitate in appropriate proceedings.” Thereafter, the petitioner was allowed to voluntarily retire from service with effect from 31.01.2018. The 1^' respondent issued a show cause notice to the petitioner by a memo dated 06.07.2018 calling for explanation as to why 1% cut in pension permanently should not be imposed as punishment. The petitioner submitted his explanation on 16.07.2018. Then, the impugned proceeding vide G.O.Ms.No.122, dated 23.11.2018 was passed imposing major penalty as proposed. Hence, this petition was filed. 03. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in spite of a clear finding by the inquiry officer that no charge was proved against the 4 WP(AT).No.261 of 2022 petitioner, heavy major penalty was proposed disproportionate to the allegation. He further submitted that the charge is that the records were tampered, whereas ultimately the punishment was Imposed on a different ground that the petitioner failed to supervise which resulted in tampering of the records leading to false claim of travel allowance bills. He further submitted that there is no loss to the government since the amount said to be paid towards bills was recovered by imposing penalty on the other charged officer, but without considering any of those facts, the impugned order was passed in a mechanical manner on technical grounds. On the other hand, the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Services-lll submitted that there is no merit in the petition and placed on respondent vide letter No.125/EI(4)/2019, dated 13.03.2025 narrating the same as in the impugned proceedings and further that the penalty imposed is also very meagre and does not call for any interference. 04. St record the written instructions of the 1 05. Since the punishment was imposed basing on charge No.1, the same is noted below; “That the said Sri T.Govardhan functioning as Deputy Director in the Ground Water Department, Kurnool in connivance with Sri Srinivasulu Superintendent has allowed tampering the attendance of Register, cash book, abstract attendance register from January, 2008 to May, 2008, thus facilitating of claiming of false T.A. bills by the Superintendant for the above period. Claiming of false T.A. bill was in vague since March 2006. While the claimant has never undertaken the claimed journeys, the 5 WP(AT).No.261 of 2022 connivance of the said T. Govardhan, Deputy Director with Sri Y. Srinivasulu, Superintendant, in claiming in claiming the false T.A. bills has resulted in loss of Rs. 50,000/- to the Govt, exchequer.” Admittedly, the report of the inquiry officer shows that charges were not proved, however the disciplinary authority differed from the opinion due to proof of lack of superintendence resulting in loss to the government irrespective of recovery of the same from the other charged officer. Merely because the charge framed is differed from the ground for imposing penalty, it cannot be a ground to drop the action against the petitioner as the ground on which penalty was imposed is lesser form of the charge against the petitioner. 06. That apart, the disciplinary authority is not disempowered to differ from the view taken by the inquiry officer in the report, of course, the disciplinary authority has to justify the proposed penalty basing on the evidence available on record by giving cogent reasons. In this case, the tampering of record by other charged officer has been duly proved and punishment was also imposed. Though, the petitioner is not guilty of tampering, it is a clear case of lack of superintendence, a reflection of negligence calling for disciplinary action. Therefore, there is no error in holding the petitioner guilty of such inaction. 07. However, considering the fact that no monetary gain was made by the petitioner and it is only lack of supervision, the quantum of punishment awarded is on higher side than required in this case. As such, the impugned order dated 23.11.2018 is modified to the extent of limiting 1% permanent cut in pension to a period of two years from the date of his retirement. 08. 6 WP{AT).No.261 of 2022 Accordingly, with the above direction, the writ petition is partly allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. 09. Interim orders granted earlier, if any, shall stand vacated. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. Sd/- N NAGAMMA ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SE' N OFFICER To, 1. The Director, Ground Water Department, A.P., Vyshya Bhavan, Besides Government General Hospital, Hanumanpet, Vijayawada, Krishna District. 2. The Principal Secretary, Irrigation and Command Area Department, State of Andhra Pradesh, A.P. Secretariat Buildings, Velagapudi, Amaravathi, Vijayawada, Krishna District. 3. One CC to Sri K. R. Srinivas, Advocate [OPUC] 4. TwoCCsto GP for Services III, High Court of Andhra Pradesh. [OUT] 5. Three C.D. Copies. Cnr HIGH COURT DATED:20/03/2025 ORDER A WP(AT).No.261 of 2022 /O n Ml* vn X o uurreni. section ^ PARTLY ALLOWING THE W.P. WITHOUT COSTS