( 1 ) THIS writ petition has been filed challenging the orders passed by the andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal in o. A. No. 75833 of 1990 and Review M. A. No. 4562 of 1993 and also the orders dated 26-10-1984 and 29-12-1987 passed by the respondents 1 and 3 respectively.

( 2 ) THE petitioner was working as Matron in the Social Welfare Department. On 31-1-1984 Huzur Head Clerk (D), collectorate, Nellore, on the basis of his inspection, instructed the Government S. C. Girls Hostel, Indukurpet to frame certain charges against the petitioner. Five chgarges were framed against her and they were, (1) That she had not taken bona fide residence at Indurkurpet and she was daily operating from Nellore daily; (2) That the petitioner had marked attendance for 126 boarders, whereas 120 boarders were present at the time of inspection and she had drawn ration for the absentee students, thus misused the government funds: (3) That the petitioner failed to maintain register for the purchases of vegetables, eggs etc. ; (4) That the petitioner had not maintained cash account from 17-11-1983 onwards; (5) That on physical verification of the provisions, there was a deficit of 99 Kgs of rice, 3 Kgs of tamarind and 11/2kgs. of Chillies;

( 3 ) A show cause notice was issued to the petitioner. After she offered an explanation, district Collector passed an order awarding punishment of stoppage of two increments with cumulative effect. Thereafter, she filed an appeal before the Director of Social welfare, Hyderabad on 16-5-1985. As this appeal was not decided, according to the petitioner, she filed another appeal before the Government which was disposed of on 31-1-1990 and the order was communicated to the petitioner on 2-3-1990. The government rejected the appeal. Then she went to the Tribunal. The Tribunal acted like an appellate authority and examined the charges and the explanation given by the petitioner and came to the conclusion that the charges were proved. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the Tribunal had not to sit as an appellate authority over the orders passed by the authorities, but had to go into the question of the legality of the order of punishment which was not done by the Tribunal.

( 4 ) COUNTER was not filed by the respondents either before this Court or before the Tribunal. The learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn our attention to certain G. Os. , one of them being g. O. Ms. No. 536, General Administration (Service-C) Department dt. 8-12-1997, which lays down, "in the order first read above, it is ordered that for imposing the penalty of stoppage of increment with cumulative effect, the procedure laid down in rule 20 of the Andhra Pradesh civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1991 shall be followed. It was also ordered therein that the penalty of stoppage of increment with cumulative effect shall be treated as a major penalty. 2. In Rule 17 of the Andhra Pradesh public. Service Commission regulations, 1963, it is mentioned that consultation with the Andhra Pradesh public Service Commission shall be necessary where the State Government propose to pass an original order imposing any of the following penalties: (I) Reduction to a lower rank in the seniority list or to a lower post or time-scale whether in the same service or in another service, State or Subordinate or to a lower stage in a time scale; (II) Recovery from pay of the whole or part of any pecuniary loss caused to the Government or to a local body by negligence or breach of orders; (III) Compulsory retirement otherwise than under Article 465 (2) or under note 1 to Article 465-A of the Civil service Regulations; (iv) Removal from service or (v) Dismissal. 3. Since the stoppage of increments with cumulative effect is treated as a major penalty, it is necessary to consult the Andhra Pradesh Public Service commission before imposing the said penalty 4. Accordingly, it is ordered that where it is prop