Point of law: Before a claim based on equality clause is upheld, it must be established by the petitioner that his claim being just and legal, has been denied to him, while it has been extended to others and in this process there has been a discrimination.

ORDER :

Surepalli Nanda, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader for Services-I.

2. The present Writ Petition is filed against the order of A.P Administrative Tribunal (for short the Tribunal') in O.A No. 2685 of 2006, dated 04.12.2008, whereby the Tribunal has dismissed the OA and did not interfere with the punishment of withholding of 30% pension permanently payable to the petitioner and to quash the said order dated 04.12.2008 and also to set aside the order of punishment imposed in G.O.Rt.No.877, dated 13.03.2006.

3. The brief facts of the case are as follows:

The Petitioner worked as Sub-Treasury Officer, in the District Treasury Office, Karimnagar during the period from March, 1997 to 31.01.2001 and he retired on 31.01.2001 after attaining superannuation. On 18.02.2004 four Articles of charge were drawn against the petitioner and his explanation was called for.

4. The Articles of charge are as follows:

a. that an amount of Rs. 75,000/- was paid to one Mr. Syed Ameena Ahmed, Sr. Accountant, Dist. Treasury, Karimnagar towards medical advance bill without having any sanction orders of the head of the department. Consequently, this resulted in fraudulent drawl of amount causing financial loss to the Govt.

b. that another medical reimbursement bill of Rs. 5410/- was processed of the same officer, which is also a fraudulent drawl.

c. That one G. Ranga Swamy, Sub-Treasury Officer, Karimnagar, has also drawn an amount of Rs. 17,662/- towards medical reimbursement though the bill did not receive proper sanction.

d. That an amount of Rs. 714/-, included in the above-mentioned amount of Rs. 17,662/-, was also drawn by the same office, which is also a fraudulent drawl.

5. The petitioner submitted his explanation on 10.04.2004 denying the charges and with the defence as follows:

a) He has no authority to sanction the bills since he is only a Sub Treasury Officer and that the bills are prepared by the District Treasury Officer and are passed by the Assistant Treasury Officer and as such he is not responsible for both preparing and passing of bills for payment. Several employees of the Karimnagar Treasury Office were charge sheeted with the same allegations and, the government conducted common inquiry against all the charged officers by appointing G. Vijay Kumar, Joint Director as Inquiry Officer and the Inquiry Officer found those charges as proved against all the charged employees and consequently, the Government issued G.O.Rt.No.877, dated 13.03.2006 imposing the punishment of withholding of 30% pension permanently on the petitioner. The order of punishment suffers from non-application of mind and unreasonableness. The disciplinary authority failed to see that there is no role played by the charged officer in both preparation and passing of bills for payment and therefore, cannot be implicated for fraudulent drawal.

b) The charged officer questioned the G.O Rt. 877, and approached the Tribunal by way of O.A.No.2685 of 2006, which was dismissed on 04.12.2008 stating that the inquiry was conducted in accordance with the rules and no prejudice has been caused to the employee and that the case of the petitioner doesn't warrant any interference. The petitioner again approached the Government and submitted various representations seeking the consideration inspired by the events that have subsequently taken place in respect of the other charged employees i.e. one Smt. Sofiya, who was initially punished with stoppage of two years increments with cumulative effect and later converted into stoppage of one increment with no cumulative effect and that of one V. Babu Rao, who was initially reduced in rank from the post of AO to ATO and later converted into withholding of 2% pension for one year and that of one Saleem Raza, who was also initially given the punishment of stoppage of two increments with cumulative effect and then converted into stoppage of one increment with no cumulative effect and that of one S.Kommaiah