In disciplinary proceedings, penalties must align with proven charges; failure to establish misconduct can lead to modifications of imposed penalties.

ORDER :

1. This Writ Petition is filed questioning the order dated 08.06.2009 passed by the 3^rd respondent, who confirmed the order dated 16.03.2009 passed by the 2nd respondent as well as the order dated 22.09.2008 and Corrigendum dated 07.11.2008 passed by the 1^st respondent.

2. Heard Sri Sundareshan, learned counsel representing Sri P. Govind Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri A.K. Jaya Prakash Rao, learned Standing counsel appearing for the respondents.

3. Brief facts of the case are as follows :-

(a) The petitioner was initially appointed as a Computer Operator in the respondent Corporation on 11.08.1997 and thereafter, he was posted at the Accounts Division of Hotel Samrat, New Delhi and worked till May, 2001. On 15.05.2001, he was transferred and posted at ITDC Duty Free Shop, Hyderabad Airport, Hyderabad, on permanent basis. The petitioner discharged his duties to the satisfaction of his superiors at Hotel Samrat and there was no complaint whatsoever against him.

(b) While so, on 05.04.2006, the Prohibition and Excise Police, Balanagar, registered a case in Crime No.4/06-07 for the offence punishable under Section 8 (b) (ii) r/w Rule IV and VII of A.P. Prohibition Act, 1955 against A-1 to A-7, wherein the petitioner was arrayed as A-5. In view of the registration of the said case, the 1st respondent placed the petitioner under suspension by order, dated 08.04.2006. Questioning the said suspension order, the petitioner filed W.P.No.17857 of 2006 and this Court suspended the order, dated 08.04.2006 vide W.P.M.P.No.22397 of 2006 in W.P.No.17857 of 2006 dated 06.02.2007, and thereafter, the petitioner was reinstated into service.

(c) After completion of the investigation, the Excise authorities filed a charge-sheet before the learned Special Judicial First Class Magistrate for Prohibition and Excise Cases, Ranga Reddy District, only against A-1 to A-5, and the names of A-6 and A-7 were deleted. Questioning the said action, the petitioner filed W.P.No.18067 of 2007 before this Court. This Court by order, dated 19.04.2008, granted stay of all further proceedings in C.C.No.174 of 2007.

(d) Thereafter, the 1^st respondent issued Memorandum to the petitioner on 27.02.2007 and ordered for an enquiry. After completion of the enquiry, the Presenting Officer filed his written brief on 27.03.2008, to which the petitioner filed his reply on 17.04.2008. The Enquiry Officer submitted his report on 25.05.2008, to which the petitioner submitted his explanation on 28.07.2008. Not satisfied with the explanation submitted by the petitioner, the 1^st respondent passed order, dated 22.09.2008, imposing the penalty of stoppage of two annual grade increments with cumulative effect along with recovery of an amount of Rs.38,226/- towards loss to the Corporation and Rs.25,000/- towards Customs Duty and Penalty. Thereafter, the 1^st respondent issued a Corrigendum on 07.11.2008 in respect of the penalty mentioned at Para 2 page 2 of order, dated 22.09.2008.

(e) Aggrieved by the said order and Corrigendum, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the 2^nd respondent, and the same was dismissed by order, dated 16.03.2009. Thereafter, the petitioner also preferred a revision before the 3^rd respondent and the same was also dismissed on 08.06.2009. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner filed the present writ petition.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the Enquiry Officer, after conducting an elaborate enquiry, held that the Management failed to establish both the charges levelled against the petitioner. Though the Enquiry Officer exonerated the pet