APHC010059522026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3575] MONDAY, THE THIRTIETH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX I.A No.1 of 2026 in/and Writ Appeal No:318 of 2026 Between: 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP BY ITS SPECIAL CHIEF SECRETARY, REVENUE (VIGILANCE-LL) DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS AT HYDERABAD 500 022 AT PRESENT SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR. 2. THE COMMISSIONER DIRECTOR AND INSPECTOR GENERAL, REGISTRATION AND STAMPS, FOR THE STATE OF A P AT HYDERABAD 500 001 AT PRESENT TADEPALLI, GUNTUR ...APPELLANT(S) AND 1. K DASARATHARAMI REDDY, S/o Jalarami Reddy, aged about 67 years. Sub Registrar Grade I, Retd O/o the Deputy Inspector General of Registration and Stamps Guntur R/o Fiat NO 401, BBIock Sai Maharoj Willows, Housing Board Colony, Ongle, Prakasam Disitrict 523002. ...RESPONDENT CORAM: HON’BLE Mrs. JUSTICE LISA GILL HON’BLE Mr. JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA Present: Mr. G.Raju, Government Pleader for Services-I. Mr. S.Gopal Rao, Advocate for respondent. *** W.A No.318 of 2026 -2- LISA GILL,J: Prayer in this writ appeal is for setting aside order dated 07.04.2025 passed by learned Single Bench whereby W.P (AT) No.37 of 2021 filed by respondent/writ petitioner has been allowed. 2. Brief facts necessary for adjudication of the matter are that above said writ petition was filed by respondent/writ petitioner for setting aside G.O. dated 19.11.2025 whereby punishment of 10% cut permanently in petitioner’s pension besides recovery of Rs.27,845/- was imposed for registering documents executed on stamps sold with ante dates without verification and thereby causing loss to the State Exchequer. It was pleaded in the writ petition that petitioner while working as Sub-Registrar, Tenali, Guntur, received charge-memo dated 01.06.1998 with the article of charge, which reads as follows: “That the said Sri K. Dasaratharami Reddy, while working as Sub- Registrar, Tenali, registered the document Nos.1589 and 1727 of 1995 without verifying the date of purchase of stamps sold by Sri Ch.Radhakrishna Murthy, Stamp Vendor, Guntur, Sri K. Rama Rao, Stamp Vendor, Nallapadu, as required in Inspector General of Registration and Stamps Instructions vide Memo No.MV.I/5000/92, dt.26-7-93 and 27-8-93. In the preliminary enquiry it was prima facie established that the Stamp vendors have sold the stamps used for the above documents with ante- dates to facilitate the parties to draft documents with ante-dates in order to evade payment of stamp duty on the revised market values which have come into force w.e.f.,1-4-95. An account of selling stamps with ante-dates and Sri K. Dasaratharami Reddy registering the documents without verifying the date of selling of stamps, Government sustained a loss of revenue of Rs.27,845/-.” W.A No.318 of 2026 -3- 3. Reply was filed by writ petitioner on 01.07.1998 explaining the circumstances to show that he was not at fault. 4. Enquiry Officer was appointed on 06.04.2000, statedly, without furnishing any documents. No enquiry was conducted for a period of about eight (8) years and it is on 03.12.2008 that an another Enquiry Officer was appointed. As enquiry was still not concluded, yet another Enquiry Officer was appointed vide order dated 17.04.2010. As per Enquiry Report dated 13.03.2012, it was concluded that “After reconciling the notices issued by the D.R.Guntur, with the chargeability of the stamp duty in the documents, the legitimate loss in the above documents is only Rs.4,627/-, instead of Rs.27,845/- as alleged in the charge memo”. 5. It is further stated in the said report that variation in loss of revenue to the Government is Rs.2,495/- in P.E.8 and Rs.620/- in P.E.9 and that total variation in both the documents put together is Rs.3,115/- as per D.E.11 and D.E.12. It was alleged by the writ petitioner that there is inordinate delay in conducting the enquiry. Ultimately, order of punishment was passed on 13.03.2012. O.A No.610 of 2016 (W.P (AT) No.37 of 2021) was filed by petitioner. 6. Learned Single Bench on considering the facts and circumstances held that impugned order cannot be set aside merely on the ground of delay in conducting enquiry. However, it was found that punishment imposed upon the petitioner is not proportional to the gravity of charge. Punishment was thus modified from 10% cut in pension permanently to that of 10% cut in pension for two years from the date of retirement. 7. Aggrieved therefrom, present writ appeal has been filed by the State. 8. Learned counsel for appellants vehemently argues that there was no occasion for reducing the punishment imposed upon the appellants on the ground of delay in conclusion of departmental proceedings. Once charge against the delinquent was proved and said finding was upheld by learned writ W.A No.318 of 2026 -4- Court, there was no occasion for reducing the punishment imposed upon him. It is thus, prayed that impugned order dated 07.04.2025 be set aside to the extent that punishment imposed upon the writ petitioner has been reduced. 9. Learned counsel on behalf of respondent refutes the arguments and seeks dismissal of the appeal. 10. We have heard learned counsel for parties and have perused the file with their assistance. 11. Initiation of enquiry against respondent/writ petitioner leading to passing of order dated 19.11.2015 imposing the punishment as detailed above is a matter of record. 12. Learned Single Bench vide impugned order dated 07.04.2025 has refused to set aside the impugned order on the ground of delay but has reduced the punishment imposed. 13. It is to be noted that loss caused to the revenue/State as per enquiry report dated 13.03.2012, has been found to be not Rs.27,845/-, but of lesser amount. Vide order of punishment dated 19.11.2015, besides recovery of an amount of Rs.27,845/-, 10% cut in pension permanently has been imposed. 14. Admittedly, petitioner had retired from service in the year 2006; Show Cause Notice was issued in the year 2014 and final order of punishment passed in the year 2015. Loss to the State Exchequer is less than Rs.10,000/-. Therefore, learned Single Bench has correctly held that punishment of 10% cut in pension permanently is not proportionate to the gravity of offence. 15. Doubtlessly, writ Court would not sit as an Appellate Court in matters like the present. However, it is equally well settled that there is no bar as such to cause interference in the quantum of punishment in case it shocks the conscience of the Court. Normally the matter would be remanded to appropriate authority to re-consider the quantum of punishment, but in the W.A No.318 of 2026 -5- present peculiar factual matrix, we do not find non adoption of such course to be sufficient to cause interference. 16. Learned counsel for appellants is unable to point out any illegality or irregularity or infirmity in the impugned order dated 09.04.2025 passed by learned Single Bench. 17. At this stage, we note that there is a delay of 273 days in filing the present writ appeal. As the matter has been adjudicated upon merits, delay in filing the appeal is rendered academic. Application is disposed of, accordingly. 18. No other argument was addressed. 19. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances as above, this Writ Appeal is dismissed being devoid of any merit. No costs. Pending application(s), if any, stand(s) disposed of accordingly. (LISA GILL) JUDGE (NINALA JAYASURYA) JUDGE Date:30.03.2026 Ksj