The main legal point established in the judgment is that the proceedings issued by the High Court were for the purpose of regularization of the petitioner's service and fixation of pension, and not for imposing further punishment.

JUDGMENT

B.V.L.N.CHAKRAVARTHI, J. - This writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Indian constitution to issue a writ in the nature of mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in imposing punishment vide proceedings dtd. 28/7/2000 and 10/7/2001 as illegal, arbitrary and unjust and consequentially to set aside the said proceedings and to direct the respondents to fix the pay of the petitioner till the date of superannuation as if he was in service and pay terminal benefits and pension as per the Revised Pay Scales of 1993.

1.1 The contention of the petitioner is that he joined as District Munsif Magistrate in the State Judicial Services on 4/2/1980 and later he was promoted as Subordinate Judge; the petitioner was subsequently suspended from the service by the High Court vide proceedings issued by the 2nd respondent on 22/4/1991 and after due enquiry, the petitioner was removed from the service vide proceedings dtd. 7/1/1993 issued by the 2nd respondent; the petitioner filed writ petition in W.P.No.3992 of 1993; during the pendency of the adjudication, the petitioner attained the age of superannuation on 31/12/1994; the writ petition was disposed of by the High Court vide orders dtd. 23/7/1996 holding that, in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in T.Lakshmi Narasimha Chari v. High Court of Andhra Pradesh and another, 1996 (4) SCALE 577. the impugned order of the 1st respondent dtd. 7/1/1993 (2nd respondent herein) is set aside and held that it is for the High Court to consider and decide affect thereof in making any further recommendation to the Governor, and that in formulating its recommendation, the High Court has to keep in view the relevant rules and decisions relating to the aspect and further that all consequential actions also are to be considered and taken by the High Court in accordance with law.

2. Further contention of the petitioner is that, the 1 st respondent addressed a letter dtd. 8/5/1998 to the 3rd respondent recommending action under Rule-9 with Rule-8 of A.P Revised Pension Rules 1980; the 3rd respondent issued memo dtd. 14/6/1999 calling for explanation of the petitioner; the petitioner submitted explanation on 22/7/1999; the 3rd respondent issued G.O.Rt.No.1425, dtd. 18/10/1999 imposing punishment of 20% cut in pension for the life under Rule-9 of the A.P. Revised Pension Rules 1980; the 2nd respondent, thereafter, addressed a letter to 5th respondent on 26/10/1999 to inform the petitioner to submit pension papers; accordingly, the petitioner submitted pension papers along with a letter dtd. 20/6/2000; while the matter stood thus, the 1st respondent issued proceedings dtd. 5/11/1999 stating that as per Rule 54-A(2) of the Fundamental Rules the High Court intends to regularise the period of absence of petitioner from duty w.e.f 28/2/1993 to 31/12/1994 i.e., from the date of removal, till the date of superannuation of the petitioner and asked the petitioner to show cause why the pay and allowance to be paid to him for the said period should not be disallowed beyond 50% of the usual pay and allowances as the petitioner was not exonerated of the charges on merits; the petitioner submitted a representation dtd. 24/11/1999; the 1st respondent later imposed further punishment vide proceedings dtd. 28/7/2000 stating that upon consideration of the matter and upon such consideration hereby orders limit the pay and allowances payable to the petitioner during the above period i.e., from the date of removal from service till attained the age of superannuation of 58 years to 75% only.

3. The petitioner further contended that the above order of the 1st respondent is illegal, arbitrary and unjust; the 5th respondent calculated the benefits by deducting 20% in pursuance of the order issued by the 3rd respondent and further by reducing 75% as per the orders issued by the 1st respondent and forwarded the pension papers to the High Court on 19/12/2000; the 1st respondent instead of forwarding the pensi