Point of Law: When proceedings against one were dropped because he approached the Administrative Tribunal, the Division Bench clearly held that when proceedings were dropped against one delinquent, who was charged with identical charges, punishing the other is discrimination.

ORDER :

1. This Writ Petition is filed for the following relief:

“......to issue a Writ Order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of mandamus to declare the impugned punishment orders issued vide Procd. No. Vig (2)/7047/KHMM/01-02, dated 11.08.2006, issued by the 2nd respondent and which was slightly modified by G.O.Rt. No. 65 Housing (VIG-CELL) Department, dated 22.09.2020 issued by the 1st respondent, whereas the same punishment orders issued against another co-delinquent has been cancelled by the 1st respondent vide G.O.Rt. No. 78 Housing Department, dated 11.04.2011, consequent on the common acquittal orders passed in CC. No. 420/06, dated 25.02.2009, and failed to extend the same benefits of cancellation orders to the petitioner amounts to clear discrimination, illegal, arbitrary, and contrary to the law declared in case of D. Srinivas vs. State of A.P. 2013 (4) ALT (DB), accordingly, set aside the impugned punishment orders, dated 11-08-2006 and 22.09.2020 and consequently direct the respondents to release all the pensionary benefits to the petitioner immediately and to pass such other order or orders as this Hon’ble Court may deems fit just and proper in the circumstances of the case.”

2. This Court has heard Sri. Ramalingeswara Rao Kocherlakota and Sri. Rajesh Maddi, learned counsel representing the learned Government Pleader for Services-IV.

3. With the consent of all the learned counsel, the Writ Petition itself is taken up for hearing.

4. The petitioner along with two other employees of the 2nd respondent-Corporation were charge sheeted and found guilty in a departmental enquiry. Learned counsel for the petitioner points out that orders were passed against all the three officers to recover a sum of Rs. 8,48,000 in the ration of 20:30:50. As far as the present petitioner is concerned a sum of Rs. 2,54,400/- was proposed to be recovered and a further punishment of stoppage of five annual grade increments with cumulative effect was given. The petitioner and the other co-delinquents took up the matter with the Government, which thereafter reduced the punishment, as far as petitioner is concerned to stoppage of five annual grade increments without cumulative effect, besides the recovery of Rs. 2,54,400/- with 12% interest. Similarly, the punishment in cases of other employees were also modified. Learned counsel also points out that the criminal case filed against the petitioner in C.C. No. 42 of 2006 ended in acquittal. This was brought to the notice of the State. Apart from this learned counsel for the petitioner points out that out of three employees, who were charge sheeted, the case against one employee was totally dropped, by G.O.Rt. No. 78 was issued on 11.04.2011 cancelling the punishment imposed against Mr. V. Ramulu. Learned counsel submits that since the accusation against all the three is common and they were all initially found to be guilty and the money was sought to be recovered in certain proportion, the order by which the punishment is dropped against Mr. V. Ramulu is clearly discriminatory. He relies upon a Division Bench judgment reported in D. Srinivas vs. Government of A.P. Transport, Roads and Buildings (Vig.I) Department and Others, 2013 (4) ALT 1 (D.B.) to argue that the action of the respondents in imposing penalty on a petitioner alone while dropping the action against the co-delinquents amounts to discrimination. Therefore, learned counsel prays for an order.

5. Sri. Rajesh Maddi, learned counsel representing the State argues the punishment was imposed after an enquiry. Basing on the acquittal in the criminal case and other factors the punishment was also modified. He, therefore, submits that once loss is caused to the Government, the petitioner cannot claim that he should be exonerated. He submits that in such cases the proceedings should be allowed to go to their logical conclusion and should not be stopped. He relies upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Ci