Judgment :

M.Y. Eqbal, J.:

Leave granted.

2. These appeals are directed against the judgment and order dated 3.7.2008 passed by Andhra Pradesh High Court in Writ Petition No. 18423 of 2007 and 18697 of 2007 whereby the High Court set aside the common order dated 9.4.2007 passed by Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal at Hyderabad in O.A. No.6325 of 2006 and O.A. No.7370 of 2006.

3. The facts of the case lie in a narrow compass.

4. The appellant at the relevant time was working as Superintendant in the office of Commissioner of Sericulture at Hyderabad. According to the appellant, sometime in the year 2003, his wife fell sick with onset of menopause stage and mental imbalance and became unable to move. On the allegation against the appellant that he neglected in discharging his duties, a disciplinary proceeding was initiated on 18.1.2004 and a charge memo was issued. On 3.2.2004, appellant submitted a representation requesting the respondent authorities to permit him to retire from service w.e.f. 1.5.2004. On the basis of said representation, the appellant was permitted to retire from service w.e.f. 1.5.2004 and an order to that effect was issued by the Commissioner, Sericulture dated 4.3.2004.

5. In purported exercise of power of Rule 43 (1) of Andhra Pradesh Revised Pension Rules, 1980, the appellant's case was that vide application dated 15.4.2004 he requested the authorities to permit him to continue in service till age of superannuation and to revoke the order issued on 4.3.2004. The said application was rejected by the Commissioner, Sericulture vide order dated 28.4.2004. In the meantime, the Commissioner, Sericulture passed an order on 29.7.2004 imposing punishment of 25% cut in the pension amount of the appellant on the charges of gross negligence in discharging duties. The appellant challenged the said order dated 29.7.2004 by filing an appeal before the State Government. The said appeal was allowed by the State Government vide order dated 3.4.2006 and the order of Commissioner, Sericulture imposing 25% cut in pension amount was set aside. After the said order was passed by the State Government, the appellant filed another application on 27.4.2006 seeking issuance of appropriate order for his reinstatement. However, the said application/representation was rejected by the Government vide order dated 1.9.2006. The appellant challenged the said order before the Administrative Tribunal by filing O.A. No. 6325 of 2006. In the said O.A. an interim order was passed by the Tribunal directing the Appellate Authority of the respondent to reconsider the case of the appellant for reinstatement. Pursuant to the said direction, the Government considered the case of the appellant and finally passed an order on 24.11.2006 holding that the request of the appellant for reinstatement cannot be considered.

6. Aggrieved by the said order dated 24.11.2006, the appellant filed another O.A. No.7370 of 2006 before the Administrative Tribunal. The Tribunal finally heard both the applications being O.A. No.6325 of 2006 and O.A. No.7370 of 2006 and passed a common order setting aside the order dated 4.3.2004 issued by the Commissioner, Sericulture permitting the appellant to retire from service w.e.f. 1.5.2004 and also set aside the order dated 28.4.2004 and 24.11.2006 and directed the respondent to allow appellant to continue in service till he attains the age of superannuation. The aforesaid common order was finally challenged by the respondents before the High Court by filing writ petition. The Division Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court by impugned order allowed both writ petitions being W.P. Nos. 18423 of 2007 and 18697 of 2007 and set aside the order passed by the Tribunal. Allowing the writ petitions, the High Court observed as under:-

"7. It appears that the respondent has filed an appeal with the prayer that the order imposing the penalty of 25% cut in pension may be set aside to enable him to submit his pension papers to the Accoun