ORDER :

1. Heard, The learned Government Pleader for Services-II, appearing for the State/petitioners.

1.1 The Writ Petition is filed against the orders passed in O.A.No.9780 of 2002 with C.A.No.153 of 2003, dated 15.09.2004 on the file of the A.P. Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad (hereinafter referred to as “the Tribunal”).

2. The parties are arrayed as mentioned in the Writ Petition.

3. The case of the State/petitioners is that Sri M.K.Viswanadham, who worked as Senior Accountant in the Treasuries and Account Department at Kurnool, the husband of the respondent herein while working as Senior Accountant at Srisailam, was put on as In-charge Sub-Treasury Officer at Srisailam. While working as Sub-Treasury Officer, he committed certain financial irregularities amounting to a loss of Rs.40,47,451/- and before issuance of the charge memo, the employee was placed under suspension in the year 1997 and thereafter, Articles of Charges were framed vide charge memo dated 28.03.1998. Further the respondent’s husband has not submitted his explanation to the charges and an Enquiry Officer was appointed to conduct the enquiry under A.P. Civil Services (CCA) Rules, 1991. The said Enquiry Officer issued notice to the charged officer, directing to appear for the enquiry and the charged officer in turn on 21.06.1999 submitted his explanation requesting to examine certain witnesses and thereafter not attended the enquiry.

4. The learned Government Pleader submitted that the enquiry was not only initiated against the charged officer (respondent’s husband), but also against several other officers who are involved in the said misappropriation of funds. Thereafter, the Enquiry Officer submitted a report holding that the charges are proved against the charged officers, including the respondent’s husband herein. Referring to the averments contained in the writ affidavit, he states that the respondent’s husband submitted a representation on 14.08.1997 wherein he has categorically stated that, to meet the medical expenditure towards the treatment of his daughter and also because of the encouragement of the Junior Accountant, he has withdrawn the amounts on the duplicate documents and requested to grant time for payment of amounts. The learned Government Pleader asserts that this itself establishes that the respondent’s husband has pleaded guilty of the alleged misappropriation of the Government Funds and as per the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in (1999) 7 SCC 332, where a delinquent officer admits the guilt, no enquiry is necessary. As per the representation made by the charged officer on 14.08.1997, no regular enquiry was necessary to hold him guilty of misappropriation of Government Funds, but, however, to give him a fair opportunity, charges were framed and his defences were called for. The charged officer did not cooperate with the disciplinary authority and did not even submit his written defence. He further argued that there was no cooperation of the charged officer and the charged officer evaded his participation in the enquiry by taking one plea or the other. During the pendency of the disciplinary proceedings, the charged officer expired and enquiry proceedings were concluded ex parte. Thereafter, the Government issued orders abating the disciplinary proceedings as per rules keeping in view of the fact that death abates disciplinary action and necessary action was also taken to sanction pensionary benefits to the respondent. Further, the learned Government Pleader has contended that the Government is required to take action for recovery of the loss caused by the deceased officer and Article 300 of A.P. Financial Code, Volume-1, makes it clear that every endeavour shall be made by the Government to recover the loss. The department on verification of documentary evidence found that the deceased husband of the respondent was responsible for a loss of Rs.28,37,553/- and upon the confession made by the deceased himself that he misappropr