APHC010753452012 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH TUESDAY,THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TUHIN KUMAR GEDELA WRIT PETITION NO: 9716/2012 Between: 1. K GANGA CHALAM, HYD, S/O. APPALASWAMI RETIRED DY. COLLECTOR, R/O. H.NO. S2 VANASTHALIPURAM, HYDERABAD 1. SPL CHIEF SECY TO CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, A.P. SECRETARIAT, HYDERABAD 2. THE CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF LAND ADMINISTRATION, STATION ROAD, NAMPALLY, HYDERABAD 3. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, GUNTUR, GUNTUR DISTRICT 4. THE A.P.ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, REP.BY ITS REGISTRAR, HYDERABAD. 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 issue an appropriate writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the Order of the 4th Respondent IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY,THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TUHIN KUMAR GEDELA WRIT PETITION NO: 9716/2012 K GANGA CHALAM, HYD, S/O. APPALASWAMI RETIRED DY. COLLECTOR, R/O. H.NO. S2-91-C, SACHIVALAYA NAGAR, VANASTHALIPURAM, HYDERABAD ...PETITIONER AND SPL CHIEF SECY TO GOVT REVENUE DEPT HYD 2 OT, SPECIAL CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, A.P. SECRETARIAT, HYDERABAD THE CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF LAND ADMINISTRATION, STATION ROAD, NAMPALLY, HYDERABAD THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, GUNTUR, GUNTUR DISTRICT 4. THE A.P.ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, REP.BY ITS REGISTRAR, ...RESPONDENT(S): 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 ssue an appropriate writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the Order of the 4th Respondent IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH [3558] TUESDAY,THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF NOVEMBER THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TUHIN KUMAR GEDELA K GANGA CHALAM, HYD, S/O. APPALASWAMI RETIRED DY. C, SACHIVALAYA NAGAR, ...PETITIONER GOVT REVENUE DEPT HYD 2 OT, SPECIAL CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, THE CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF LAND ADMINISTRATION, STATION THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, GUNTUR, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 4. THE A.P.ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, REP.BY ITS REGISTRAR, ...RESPONDENT(S): 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 ssue an appropriate writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the Order of the 4th Respondent 2 CMR,J & GTK,J W.P.No.9716 of 2012 made in O A No 1505 of 2007 dt 22 11 2010 and also the Order dt 26 4 2011 made by the 4th Respondent in Review M A No 3699 of 2010 in O A No 1505 of 2007 confirming the Order passed by the 1st Respondent vide G O Rt No 2596 Revenue Vig III Department dt 7 12 2006 imposing the punishment of 50 cut in pension as arbitrary illegal violative of the C C C A Rules Violative of the principles of natural justice and also violative of the fundamental rights guaranteed to the petitioner under the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents to release arrears of pension from the date of retirement till date along with interest at 18 per annum and continue to pay the petitioner full pension and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2012(WPMP 11656 OF 2012 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to condone the delay of 77 days in resubmitting the above WPSR No. 18772 of 2011 in the interest of justice and pass IA NO: 2 OF 2012(WPMP 12285 OF 2012 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased direct the Respondents suspend the operation of G.O.Rt.No. 2596 Revenue (Vig.III) Department dt. 7.12.2006, pending disposal of the above writ petition and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. PARTY IN PERSON Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR SERVICES I (AP) The Court made the following: 3 CMR,J & GTK,J W.P.No.9716 of 2012 ORDER: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice Cheekati Manavendranath Roy) Challenging the legal validity of the order, dated 22.11.2010, passed in O.A.No.1505 of 2007, whereby the Tribunal has upheld the punishment imposed against the petitioner, the instant Writ Petition has been filed. 2. Heard the petitioner, appearing in person, and the learned Government Pleader for Services-I for the respondents. 3. The facts leading to the lis may briefly be stated as follows: The petitioner was an employee, who worked as Executive Director, Scheduled Caste Co-operative Society. During his tenure as Executive Director, a proposal was made by the State Government to identify certain lands for the purpose of assigning the same to the landless poor. A Committee was formed initially to identify the said lands. The petitioner is one of the members of the said Committee. They have identified a piece of land, which is with shrubs and bushes and recommended for assignment of the said land stating that it is fit for cultivation. The Government did not accept the said proposal. Thereafter, another Committee was formed to identify the land useful for cultivation. The petitioner is not a member of the said Committee. The second Committee has identified certain piece of land and made proposals for assignment of the said land to the landless poor and, accordingly, it was assigned. Subsequently, it was found that the said land is also not fit for cultivation. Therefore, alleging that the members of the Committee committed dereliction of duties, in properly identifying the land fit for cultivation, Departmental Enquiry was ordered against them on the ground that the said act, in identifying a land unfit for cultivation, is an act of misconduct. In the enquiry that was held, petitioner and some others were found guilty. The Enquiry Report was accepted and punishment of 50% cut in pension was ordered as per G.O.Rt.No.2596 Revenue (Vig.III), Department, dated 07.12.2006. 4 CMR,J & GTK,J W.P.No.9716 of 2012 4. Challenging the said punishment imposed against the petitioner, he has approached the A.P.Administrative Tribunal pleading that he is not a member of the second Committee that was constituted, which identified the land for assignment. He has challenged the order of punishment among other grounds pleaded by him. 5. The Tribunal, after enquiry, upheld the order of punishment and dismissed his application. Review Application filed by him was also dismissed. Therefore, aggrieved by the impugned order of the Tribunal, the petitioner has invoked the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and filed this Writ Petition challenging the legal validity of the impugned order. 6. Admittedly, the petitioner was the member of the first Committee that was constituted to identify the lands for assignment to the landless poor. Though the said Committee has identified certain lands to assign the same to the landless poor, which are not fit for cultivation, it is evident that the Government did not accept the said proposal. Therefore, the Government has constituted a second Committee for the same purpose. It is significant to note here that the petitioner is not the member of the said second Committee and he is not among the members who are responsible for the irregularities committed in identifying the said land. The said fact is clearly admitted in the letter addressed by the third respondent-District Collector, Guntur to the Secretary to Government, Revenue (Services) Department. In the said letter in Rc.No.9098/99-A4, dated 12.10.1999, it is clearly mentioned as follows: “THE FOLLOWING OFFICERS BELONGING TO REVENUE DEPARTMENT ARE FOUND RESPONSIBLE FOR THE IRREGULARITIES: 1. L.S. Ramakrishna. V.A.O., Madugula. 2. Sri Shaik John Sydulu, former MRI, Pulipadu group, Gurazala Mandal & presently working as Sr.Asst. MRO’s.Office, Macherla. 5 CMR,J & GTK,J W.P.No.9716 of 2012 3. Smt. M. Mary Kumari, Spl.R.I., O/o E.D., S.C. Corpn, Guntur. 4. Sri M. Sreeram, former Spl.Dy.Tahsildar, O/o E.D.S.C.Corpn., Guntur. 5. Sri A. Veeraraghavaiah, former Spl.Dy.Tahsildar, O/o E.D.S.C.Corpn. Guntur and presently working as Spl.Dy.Tahsildar, C.S.Checkpost, Ghantavaripalem. 6. Sri K. Sriharsha Rao, former M.R.O., Gurazala., & presently working as Spl.Dy. Collector, L.A. Vamsadhara Project, Amudalavalasa, Srikakulam District. 7. Sri P.V. Krishna Murthy, former R.D.O., Narasaraopet (Retired) Spl.Gr.Dy.Collector”. 7. Therefore, it is now evident that the petitioner is not found responsible for the irregularities that are committed in identifying the said land. Therefore, he cannot be found fault with in identifying the said land. The Tribunal missed its attention to the contents of the said letter addressed by the District Collector to the Secretary to Government. Therefore, when the petitioner herein is not responsible for the irregularities committed, as alleged, it cannot be said that he has committed any act of misconduct. Therefore, the finding of the Enquiry Officer finding him guilty is clearly erroneous. The Disciplinary Authority also has erroneously accepted the said report and imposed the punishment of 50% cut in his pension. The said order of punishment is unsustainable under law and it is liable to be set aside. 8. Therefore, the Writ Petition is allowed. The impugned order of the Enquiry Officer, finding the petitioner guilty of committing the act of misconduct, is set aside and the order of punishment, imposing 50% of cut in his pension, is also set aside. Consequently, the orders of the Tribunal, both in the Original Application and the Review Application, are also set aside. The 6 CMR,J & GTK,J W.P.No.9716 of 2012 Petitioner is entitled to full pension as per Rules. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, Miscellaneous Applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. _________________________________________ CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY, J ________________________ TUHIN KUMAR GEDELA, J 25th November, 2025 Tsy