The findings of the enquiry officer are binding on both the parties and the disciplinary authority cannot simply pass a blanket order without considering the enquiry report.

JUDGMENT

Dr. K. Manmadha Rao, J. - This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking the following relief:

'.....to issue a Writ, Order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in issuing G.O.Ms. No. 93, dated 09.05.2016 by the 1st respondent in deducting of 5% of pensionary benefits as penalty is illegal, arbitrary to the provisions of the Revised Pension Rules and also violative of principles of natural justice and to treat the period of suspension between 03.04.2009 to 28.09.2010 as on duty in spite of the enquiry officers report that the charges were not provided and consequently direct the respondents to refund the amount deducted as per G.O.Ms. No. 93, dated 09.05.2016 and pass such other orders.'

2. Heard Ms. P. Vijaya Kumari, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner and learned the Government Pleader, Services-II for the respondents

3. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was working as Superintendent in Government Children's Welfare Department at Eluru. The petitioner was placed under suspension vide proceedings No. EA1/33/2009-1, dated 02.04.2009 on the ground that he committed certain irregularities, consequently disciplinary proceedings vide Charge Memo EA1/33/2009-1, dated 25.05.2009 were initiated calling for explanation, for which the petitioner submitted explanation. Without considering the explanation the enquiry report submitted that all the charges were proved against the petitioner and imposing 100% cut in the pension and gratuity. Assailing the same the petitioner filed O.A. No. 6752 of 2011 before the A.P. Administrative Tribunal and the learned Tribunal directed the respondents to conduct further enquiry from the stage of trial by its order dated 11.03.2014. Pursuant to the said order the an enquiry was initiated, after considering the evidence of the petitioner has submitted a report recommending the Government to exonerate the petitioner from all the charges. Inspite of recommendations in the enquiry report, the respondent imposed punishment, withholding 5% cut in the petitioner's pension for five years, besides treating the suspension period from 03.04.2009 to 28.09.2010 as not on duty for the reason that the petitioner did not maintain stock properly and caused financial loss to the Government. Therefore the inaction of the respondents is questioned in this writ petition.

4. Per contra, the 1st respondent filed counter denying all material averments made in the writ affidavit and mainly contended that the petitioner was suspended from service on 03.04.2009, but the petitioner never cooperated with the Enquiry for early conclusion of the disciplinary action. As per directions of the learned Tribunal, the petitioner was reinstated into service vide proceedings dated 28.09.2010 and the petitioner was permitted to retire from service on attaining the age of superannuation on the A.N. of 30.09.2010 without prejudice to the disciplinary proceedings pending or arise in future. The petitioner was paid Provisional Pension till Disciplinary Case is finalized and the 3rd respondent sanctioned Revised Pension along with other Pensionary Benefits. The petitioner submitted Review Petition dated 09.06.2016 to the 1st respondent and the same was rejected. Since Government not convinced with the report of the Second Enquiry Officer, has issued Show-Cause Notice considering his explanation and after thorough examination has issued G.O.Rt. No. 93, dated 09.05.2016 imposing the punishment of 5% cut in pension for a period of 5 years besides treating the suspension period from 03.04.2009 to 28.09.2010 as 'Not on Duty' under FR 54 B against the petitioner, as the charges are severe in nature involving misappropriation, endangering and neglecting children, causing loss to Government and moral turpitude. Therefore the petitioner is not entitled to claim 5% of the pension and requested to dismiss the writ petition