THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY W.P.No.19500 of 2025 O R DE R: The present writ petition is filed to declare CCLA’s proceedings No.REV02-28/141/2018-VIGILANCE II SEC-CCLA. (C.No.666961) dated 25.05.2025 in imposing minor penalty by withholding one annual grade increment without cumulative effect on Respondent No.6-the then Tahsildar of Beemunipatnam Mandal as illegal, unjust and contrary to the A.P.Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeals) Rules 1991 (for short ‘the Rules’). 2. The Petitioner claims to be the owner of an extent of land admeasuring Ac.0.28 cents in Sy.No.31/7 of Chapaluppada Village, Beemunipatnam Mandal, Visakhapatnam District having purchased the same under a registered sale date dated 11.04.2007 by Document No.3852/2007. Alleging that Respondent No.6 had removed the name of the Petitioner from the web line in utter violation of principles of natural justice, a complaint was given to the District Collector, Visakhapatnam. On the basis of the complaint given and after conducting preliminary enquiry, a charge memorandum was issued to Respondent No.6 2 under Rule 20 of the Rules. Consequent to the enquiry, the Respondent No.6 was imposed punishment of withholding of one annual grade increment without cumulative effect by orders dated 25.05.2025 passed by Respondent No.3. Questioning the same, the Petitioner filed a writ petition on the ground that the penalty imposed against Respondent No.6 is a minor penalty and that the Respondent No.3 ought to have imposed a major penalty on Respondent No.6. Hence, the present writ petition is filed. 3. Learned counsel for the Petitioner reiterated his submissions. 4. Learned Assistant Government Pleader Sri S.Raju contended that it is not for the Petitioner to dictate terms to the disciplinary authority as to of the punishment should be imposed. It is further contended that imposition of penalty is an absolute prerogative of Respondent No.3. 5. Having heard the learned respective counsel, this Court is of the opinion that the writ petition is wholly misconceived as under the Rules, there is no provision available for the third parties to raise complaint regarding punishments in disciplinary enquiry unlike Criminal Procedure Code (BNSS). The quantum of 3 penalty is prerogative of the disciplinary authority and the same cannot be questioned by the Petitioner. 6. Therefore, this writ petition is dismissed leaving it open to the Petitioner to initiate action against Respondent No.6 under BNSS, 2023 subject to legality of the same. No order as to costs. As a sequel, pending applications, if any, shall stand closed. __________________ NYAPATHY VIJAY, J Date: 31.07.2025 KLP