ORDER :

Venkateswarlu Nimmagadda, J.

The present Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking the following relief:

“... to issue an appropriate order, writ or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Certiorari by setting aside the impugned punishment order G.O.Rt.No.2123 PR&RD (Vig.III) Department dated 23.12.2013 and consequential proceedings RC.No.A1/135/ATP-2015 dated 08.09.2015 and Memo No.13984/Vig.IV/A2/2055 dated 04.09.2020 of the 1st respondent as illegal, arbitrary, violation of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India and pass such other order or orders…”

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader for the respondents.

3. The brief case of the petitioner is that the petitioner was initially appointed as District Panchayat Officer on 09.02.1998 in Panchayat Raj and Rural Development Department till 2007. Thereafter, he was appointed as C.T.O on 19.01.2007 and later he was promoted as Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes in the year 2013 and further his post was redesignated as Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes.

4. While the petitioner was working as District Panchayat Officer at Kadapa, he was implicated in frivolous disciplinary proceedings along with six others and he was issued a Charge Memo vide G.O.Rt.No.195 PR & RD (VIG.III) Department, dated 09.02.2007 on the alleged ground that he was extended the lease of Chevulapalli sand quarry for a period of 130 days, thereby caused loss to Government exchequer to the tune of Rs.54,025/-.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the impugned charge memo vide G.O.Rt.No.195 PR & RD (VIG.III) Department, dated 09.02.2007 was issued against the petitioner and four others who worked as district panchayat officer, Kadapa at that particular period. He further submitted that after submission of enquiry report by the commissioner of enquiry, which indicates that there is no fault on part of the petitioner and held that the charge levelled against the petitioner is not proved. Even though the enquiry report was submitted wherein it is suggested for exonerating the petitioner from the charge, the respondent authorities for the reasons best known to them issued present impugned proceedings which is contrary to the APCS (CCA) Rules, 1991. He further submitted that the other co accused were exonerated and charges were dropped by the respondents vide G.O.Rt.No.647 PR & RD Department, dated 29.04.2008 and G.O.Rt.No.696 Revenue (Vig.III) dated 28.03.2006 against one Sri L. Sreedhar Reddy and Sri Venkateswararao. After exonerating the charges against two other co-accused and after submission of enquiry report, the disciplinary authority is under legal obligation that similar benefit should be enlarged and charges should be dropped against the petitioner also.

6. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the other two co-accused preferred O.A.No.8299 of 2013 and 8300 of 2013 questioning the order of punishment of ten percent cut in pension with cumulative effect before the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal (APAT). After hearing the matter at length the APAT rendered an award dated 31.05.2017 holding that the punishment imposed by the respondent by disagreement to the enquiry report is beyond the scope of the enquiry and the respondent No.1 has no right of authority to disagree with the findings of the Enquiry Officer on the aspect which is not covered under the charge memo and then impose penalty and further held there was abnormal delay in conducting enquiry and the charge memo does not contain the basis of charge and the same is in violation of mandatory provisions of Sub Rule (3) and (4) of APCS (CCA) Rules, 1991. Accordingly, the impugned punishment imposed against applicants therein was liable to be set-aside.

7. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Hon’ble Apex Court, while dealing with the delay in initiation and conclusion o