COMMON ORDER: (per NJSJ)

Aggrieved by the order of the erstwhile Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal at Hyderabad (for short “the Tribunal”) dated 31.03.2017 in O.A.No.2177 of 2015 with VMA No.557 of 2015, the applicant as well as the respondents therein filed the present Writ Petitions and the same are disposed of by this common order.

2) For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as they are arrayed before the learned Tribunal.

3) The facts of the case in brief, may be narrated as follows:

i) The applicant while she was working as Pay and Accounts Officer, Tirupati was placed under suspension on 04.07.2009 on the allegation that certain financial irregularities have been committed in the Pay and Accounts Office, Tirupati. A charge memo dated 15.05.2010, framing eight charges was issued, to which the applicant addressed Registered letter dated 15.06.2010 to the 1^st respondent stating that the list of documents specified in Annexure-II are not received along with the charge memo and requested to furnish the same for submitting reply to the charges leveled against her. Subsequently on 25.06.2010, the applicant submitted her explanation to the charge memo while specifically stating that the copies of the documents listed in Annexure-II of the Memo dated 15.05.2010 have not been furnished to her and she is reserving her right to file additional written statement on furnishing copies listed in the Charge Memo. Denying the charges, she also requested to hold personal enquiry and hearing by affording reasonable opportunity to place the material evidence for the charges leveled against her and to put forward her defense. In the reply she also stated that CBCID authorities are investigating the scam and until full-fledged enquiry is completed by the police and criminal prosecution is over, further Departmental Enquiry may not be continued in so far as the same set of charges is concerned.

The Enquiry Officer / Commissioner of Enquiries submitted a report dated 16.11.2012 holding that out of eight charges, Charge Nos.1, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8 were proved and Charge Nos.2 and 3 were not proved. Out of the charges which were held proved against the applicant, Charge No.1 is the major charge that the applicant in Criminal Breach of Trust found involved in the encashment of 11 cheques fraudulently in collusion with other private individuals and office staff and thereby committed looting of public money to an extent of Ac.4,66,14,398/-. Charges 4 to 8 are with reference to the relevant paras in Pay and Accounts Office (Works Account) Manual dealing with the functions of the cash section and organization of the cash section, selection of cashiers, responsibilities of the Pay and Accounts Officer / Assistant Pay and Accounts Officer in- charge of cash section, Indenting Receipt and safe custody of cheque pads; responsibilities of the cashiers and reconciliation of cheques etc.

ii) Pursuant to the said enquiry report dated 16.11.2012, the 1^st respondent vide Memo dated 10.12.2012 directed the applicant to explain as to why punishment should not be imposed under Rule 9 of A.P. Revised Pension Rules, 1980 for the charges proved against the application in the Enquiry. The applicant submitted her explanation dated 24.01.2013 and thereafter, the 1^st respondent vide G.O.Ms.No.12, dated 20.02.2015 imposed a punishment of withholding entire pensionary benefits permanently on the charge officer / applicant and ordered recovery of misappropriated amount of Rs.1,91,21,590/- (apportioned among all the Charged Officers involved) along with interest, the loss caused from her from the date of occurrence of misappropriation/embezzlement of Government money to the date of recovery as per the orders issued in G.O.Ms.No.33, Finance (TRF.I) Department, dated 09.02.2006 by enforcing the Revenue Recovery Act / Criminal Law Amendment Act.

iii) In the meanwhile, the police conducted investigation into the incidents that lead to the ordering of enquiry against the