IMPORTANT POINT
It does not mean that the appellate authority cannot itself undertake the disciplinary proceedings and impose punishments.

JUDGMENT

B. Sudershan Reddy, J.—

1. This appeal by the Government of Andhra Pradesh has been filed challenging the final judgment and order dated 28.04.2003 of the High Court of judicature of Andhra Pradesh passed in Writ Petition No.2121/03 whereby the High Court allowed the Writ Petition filed by the respondent herein. The High Court by the impugned order quashed the order dated 17.04.2001 passed by the appellant dismissing the respondent from service.

2. Relevant facts leading to filing of this appeal by the State may briefly be stated as under:

3. The respondent herein was initially appointed as Over-Seer in the year 1966 which post was re-designated as Assistant Engineer in the year 1974. He was in-charge of Bitumen stores between May 1990 and September 1994 while working as the Assistant Engineer in R&B Department, Karim Nagar District, Andhra Pradesh. It was brought to the notice of the appellant that the respondent while working at the said place misappropriated huge quantities of 425 MT of bulk bitumen and 71.00 MT of pack bitumen. The Engineer-in-chief (R&B) Administration, was accordingly directed by the Government to frame appropriate charges against the respondent and others involved in the misappropriation under sub-rule (3) of Rule 20 of A.P.Civil Services (CC & A) Rules, 1991 (herein referred to as the ‘Rules’) against the respondent and others concerned. The Engineer-in-chief accordingly framed articles of charges as against the respondent. The Government issued orders appointing a Member of Commissionerate of Inquiries as the Enquiry Officer to conduct departmental enquiry against the respondent and others for the irregularities of large scale misappropriation of bitumen belonging to Government valued at about more than Rs. Forty Lakhs. The respondent was placed under suspension by the order dated 13.08.1998. The Enquiry Officer after making an enquiry as is required in law has submitted his report in which it is held that the respondent who was incharge of stores has not been able to properly account for missing quantities of bitumen and accordingly held that the charges have been duly proved against him.

4. The Government having examined the Enquiry Officer’s report and material available on record provisionally decided to impose a major penalty of dismissal from service on the respondent. A show cause notice under Rule 21(4) of the Rules was served on the respondent requiring him to explain as to why the major penalty of dismissal should not be imposed on him. A copy of the Enquiry Officer’s report has been duly furnished to the delinquent to which he submitted his written statement. The Government having examined the written statement of defence found no merit in it. The Andhra Pradesh Public Service Commission was consulted as is required in law for its concurrence to impose the major punishment of dismissal from service on the respondent to which the Commission expressed its concurrence. The Government in exercise of the powers conferred by clause (x) of Rule 9 of the said Rules accordingly passed the orders in G.O.Ms. No. 58 TR&B(S.I.3) dated 17.04.2001 inflicting punishment of dismissal from service as against the respondent.

5. The respondent challenged the said order of dismissal before the A.P. Administrative Tribunal. The Tribunal vide its judgment dated 28.06.2002; upheld the order of dismissal passed by the Government against the respondent and accordingly dismissed the appeal filed by him. Aggrieved by the said order, the respondent filed Writ petition No.2121/03 in the High Court of Andhra Pradesh. The High Court vide its impugned judgment quashed the orders of the A.P. Administrative Tribunal and accordingly set aside the order of dismissal passed against the respondent. Hence this appeal by the Government of Andhra Pradesh.

6. We have elaborately heard the learned senior counsel appearing for both the parties and perused the impugned order and the material available on record. The High Court