Ghulam Mohammed, J.

This writ petition is filed seeking a writ of certiorari calling for the records relating to the order dated 24.07.2009 passed in O.A.No.3408 of 2008 on the file of the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad and for quashing the same.

2. The brief facts of the case are as follows:

The respondent, who retired as Manager at District Hospital, Rajahmundry, was served with a charge memo dated 24.12.2003 on the ground of irresponsibility, negligence, carelessness, irregularity and lack of duty mind, which resulted in theft of Rs.16,17,058/-, kept in cash chest in District Hospital, Rajahmundry, East Godavari District, on the night of 03.12.2003. A complaint was lodged with the Station House Officer, III Town Central Crime Station, Rajahmundry, disciplinary action was initiated and charges were framed against the respondent and 4 other employees. In the enquiry, charge framed against the respondent was proved beyond reasonable doubt and therefore, the petitioners vide G.O.Ms.No.70 dated 10.03.2008 imposed on him the punishment of 100% cut in pension besides withholding of gratuity in full under Rule 9 of the Andhra Pradesh Revised Pension Rules, 1980. Challenging the said G.O., the respondent filed O.A.No.3408 of 2008, in which, the Tribunal having observed that the above said punishment is too harsh which pricks the conscious for the irresponsibility, negligence and careless of the respondent, allowed the O.A. by setting aside G.O.Ms.No.70 dated 10.03.2008 and remanded the matter to the first petitioner to impose punishment of cut in a part of pension and to release the gratuity. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners filed this writ petition.

3. The respondent filed counter stating that as per the statutory instructions, he was not responsible for the alleged offence as on that date he discharged his duties as in charge Administrative Officer and not as in charge of the cash in the District Hospital and that the cashier was having two keys of the cash chest. He further stated that the punishment imposed on him is too harsh and disproportionate to the charge and thus, he prays to dismiss the writ petition.

4. Heard the learned Government Pleader for Services-I and the learned counsel for the respondent.

5. Learned Government Pleader for Services-I vehemently contended that though the respondent was on duty as in charge Administrative Officer, he had not personally ensured about the un-disbursed pay and cash book on 03.12.2003 and that he had violated his legitimate duties and depended on his subordinate, which resulted in loss of huge government amount. He contended that on 03.12.2003, after withdrawal of huge amount from the Bank, the respondent got down from the vehicle for taking lunch leaving huge cash with his subordinate that itself indicates his irresponsibility on his official duties. He further contended that without considering the fact that the first petitioner after carefully examining the enquiry report had imposed the alleged punishment on the respondent, the Tribunal remanded the matter to the first petitioner to impose on the respondent the punishment of cut in a part of pension and for release of gratuity and this Court can interdict these findings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. He has drawn the attention of this Court to the judgment of the Apex Court in CHAIRMAN & MANAGING DIRECTOR, V.S.P v. GOPARAJU SRI PRABHAKARA HARI BABU ((2008) 5 SCC 569) wherein it was held as under:

“ The jurisdiction of the High Court in this regard is rather limited. Its power to interfere with disciplinary matters is circumscribed by well-known factors. It cannot set aside a well-reasoned order only on sympathy or sentiments.

Once it is found that all the procedural requirements have been complied with, the Courts would not ordinarily interfere with the quantum of punishment imposed upon a delinquent employee. The superior Courts only in some cases may invoke the doctrine of