JUDGMENT :

(A.V. Sesha Sai, J.)

1. In the present Writ Appeal, preferred under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, the challenge is to the order dated 23.11.2022 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(AT) No.60 of 2021. The petitioner in the aforesaid Writ Petition is the appellant in the instant appeal.

2. The appellant herein is the retired Deputy Director-Regional Deputy Director in Women Development and Child Welfare Department, Government of Andhra Pradesh. The State Government vide Memo No.8880/Estt.A2/99-5, dated 03.02.2000, issued a charge memo, framing the following charges against the writ appellant:

“ARTICLE No.I:

THAT the said Smt. M.K.R. Vijaya Kumari, while working as Regional Deputy Director, Eluru used to call the minor girl viz., Shaik Begum alias Manjula aged about 14 years when she was kept at Working Women’s Hostel, Eluru, to her residence for domestic work which is against the rules;

ARTICLE No.II:

THAT Smt. M.K.R. Vijaya Kumari, left the above minor girl alone along with her nephew giving opportunity to him to misbehave and commit rape on the said girl viz., Shaik Begum alias Manjula;

ARTICLE No.III:

THAT Smt. M.K.R. Vijaya Kumari, with an intention to safeguard her nephew, threatened the minor girl not to disclose the fact and shifted the girl to Mahila Pranganam, Tadikalapudu and tried to screen the offence intimidating the victim and other boarders of Working Women’s Hostel, Eluru for the last several months by misuse of her official position.”

3. In response to the said charge memo, the appellant herein submitted explanation, denying the said charges on 25.07.2000. Thereafter, the State Government appointed an enquiry officer on 26.09.2000, who conducted the enquiry and submitted a report on 20.03.2006, stating that the charges framed against the writ appellant herein could not be proved by the department.

4. Thereafter, the State Government issued a show-cause notice of disagreement vide Memo No.8880/Estt.A3/1999, dated 29.04.2015. Responding to the same, the appellant herein submitted her explanation on 30.06.2015. Subsequently, the Government vide G.O.Rt.No.167, Dept., for Women, Children, Disabled & Senior Citizens (Estt.A3), dated 06.10.2015, passed an order, imposing the punishment of 10% cut in admissible pension for a period of three years on the appellant herein. Assailing the validity of the aforesaid order of punishment, the appellant herein approached the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal by filing Original Application. After abolition of the said Tribunal, the said case stood transferred to this Court and numbered as W.P.(AT) No.60 of 2021. The learned Single Judge, by way of order dated 23.11.2022, disposed of the said Writ Petition, setting aside the order of punishment, however, left open to the respondent-authorities to re-enquire and re-examine the matter and pass a reasoned order in accordance with Rules.

5. Obviously, felt aggrieved by the aforesaid order to the extent of permitting the respondents to hold enquiry afresh, the present Writ Appeal is filed before this Court by the writ petitioner.

6. Heard Sri C. Srinivasa Baba, learned counsel for the writ petitioner/writ appellant and Smt. Sumathi, learned Government Pleader for Services-II for the respondents.

7. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the order of the learned Single Judge to the extent of permitting the respondents to hold enquiry afresh is highly erroneous and contrary to law. It is further submitted in elaboration by the learned counsel that in the absence of proper notice of disagreement as contemplated under Rule 21(2) of the Andhra Pradesh Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1991, the entire proceedings culminated in inflicting the punishment against the writ appellant gets vitiated. It is further submitted by the learned counsel that the criminal prosecution launched against the writ petitioner-appellant herein vide S.C.No.420 of 2000 on the file of the Additional Assistant S