The authority to issue a revised show-cause notice in disciplinary actions is not permitted under the Administrative Tribunals Act, ensuring adherence to procedural law.

ORDER :

1. Heard learned Government Pleader for Services-IV and Sri C. Srinivasa Baba, learned counsel for respondent No. 1-applicant.

2. This Writ Petition, instituted under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, calls in question the order, dated 29.07.2009, passed by the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal (hereinafter called ‘the Tribunal’) in O.A. No. 6192 of 2008.

3. By way of the aforesaid order, the Tribunal allowed the Original Application, filed by the respondent No. 1 herein under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985. Respondent No. 1 herein filed the said Original Application, assailing the order of the State Government issued vide G.O.Ms. No. 311, Municipal Administration & Urban Development (Vig.II-1) Department, dated 22.04.2008 and the Memo dated 14.07.2004.

4. Respondent No. 1 herein is a retired Manager and he retired from service in the month of June, 2001, while working in Kovvur Municipality, West Godavari District. The Commissioner and Director of Municipal Administration issued a charge Memo vide proceedings Roc. No. 9411/96-K2, dated 22.07.2000, framing the following Articles of Charges:

“Charge No. 1: That he failed to remit back the advance of Rs.2.00 lakhs to municipal funds as soon as exemption orders from payment of customs duty which is received and misappropriated the amount.

Charge No. 2: That he wilfully avoided to adjust the advance amount of Rs.2.10 lakhs by not presenting the detailed bills and vouchers even after the purpose for which the advance was taken by him was over in November, 1995 and misused the said amount.

Charge No. 3: That he has produced vouchers for Rs.70,573/- without any “pay orders” of the Municipal Commissioner and misused the said amount.

Charge No. 4: That he has spent an amount of Rs.34,065/- towards the expenditure incurred for refreshment and other miscellaneous charges, in connection with the opening ceremony organised by the Municipality on 13.11.95 without any council sanction or without authorisation by any competent authority to incur the particular expenditure and misused the said amount.

Charge No. 5: That the individual has claimed an amount of Rs.3,381-14 towards Telephone charges from 25.10.95 to 2.11.95 at New Delhi not supported by any Telephone bills and misused the said amount.

Charge No. 6: The individual has claimed Rs.628/- towards refreshment on 19.10.95, 20.10.95 and 21.10.95 at Madras not supported by any bills and misused the said amount.

Charge No. 7: That he has spent an amount of Rs.2,880-50 from the Election Advance towards T.A. and produced invalid and time barred bills without Council sanction and Counter Signature of the Municipal Commissioner.

Charge No. 8: That he has produced Voucher for Rs.19.835-20 without incurring any expenditure towards printing charges of amendments to Voters list.

Charge No. 9: That he has delayed for morethan one year to account for the Election Advance of Rs.2,98,718/-.”

5. In response to the said charge Memo and the charges contained therein, the applicant submitted his explanation on 24.08.2000. Thereafter, an Enquiry Officer was appointed and he conducted enquiry and submitted a report on 15.06.2001, holding the respondent No. 1 guilty of the charges. Enclosing a copy of the said Enquiry Officer’s report, a show-cause notice came to be issued on 24.04.2002 by the State Government vide Memo No. 18229/G1/2001-1, dated 24.04.2002, calling upon the applicant-respondent No. 1 to show cause as to why