APHC010797382013 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3457] TUESDAY,THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N WRIT PETITION NO: 131/2013 Between: 1. G.RAJA RAO. S/O. SUBBAIAH, HINDU,, OCC: RETD. ASSISTANT ENGINEER, WO. H.NO.9-634. RAJAKA COLONY, CHILAKALURIPETA, GUNTUR DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. A P STATE HOUSING CORPORATION LTD REP BY ITS, MANAGING DIRECTOR, URDU GAILY, HIMAYAT NAGAR, HYDERABAD 2. A P STATE HOUSING CORPORATION LTD DIST UNIT GUNTUR, REP.BY ITS EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR & DISTRICT COLLECTOR, GUNTUR SOCIETY PHAVAN, COLLECTOR'S BUNGLOW ROAD, GUNTUR. ...RESPONDENT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. KOTESWARA RAO MUMMANENI Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. KALYAN CHAKRAVARTHY R 2. MALLIKHARJUNA MOORTHY K (SC FOR A.P HOUSING CORPORATION LIMITED) 3. M RAVINDRANATH REDDY(SC FOR APSHC) The Court made the following: 2 ORDER:- There is no representation for the petitioner today also. 2. Learned Standing Counsel, appearing for the respondents submits that in pursuance of the interim directions of this Court, the proposed recovery of Rs.4,16,650/- has been kept on hold. That apart, it is also stated that the petitioner attained the age of superannuation on 31.07.2012 and after his retirement, the respondent has sanctioned pay fixation under RPS 1999, 2005 and 2010 and regularized the suspension period and also released the pending increments. It is also stated that the petitioner is also sanctioned the pension and the punishment of reduction of pay for a period not exceeding 3 years without cumulative effect has not adversely affected the pension of the petitioner. It is submitted that the petitioner sought for release of the arrears of amounts. However, the arrears amount is less than the amount which has to be recovered from the petitioner. 3. Considering the report of the Enquiry Officer, the recovery of Rs.4,34,650/- was proposed on account of the misuse of corporation funds in making payments to ineligible beneficiaries. The petitioner also has not raised any valid grounds for setting aside or interfering with the enquiry report. Evidently, the petitioner has participated in the enquiry, submitted his response to the show cause notice and also had submitted the relevant documents from his end. The opportunity of hearing was also granted to the petitioner during the course of enquiry. As such, it is not the case of the petitioner that the principles of natural justice were not followed by the enquiry officer. Be that as it may, considering the submissions of the learned Standing Counsel that the arrears amount was not released to the individual, as the 3 excess of the arrears amount sanctioned to the individual, this Court is not inclined to interfere. 4. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. ____________________ JUSTICE HARINATH.N Date.24.02.2026 SR