O R D E R

In this Writ Petition (TR), the petitioner is challenging the order of punishment of withholding of two increments with cumulative effect imposed by the 1^st respondent vide G.O.Rt.No.916, Transport Roads and Buildings (Vig.III.2) Department dt.25.09.2010 as illegal, arbitrary, irrational and against the principles of natural justice and consequently to set aside the same and to pass such other order or orders.

2. Brief facts leading to the filing of the present Writ Petition (TR) are that the petitioner was working as a Regional Transport Officer with the 2^nd respondent when ACB officials conducted a surprise check on the said office. Thereafter, a charge memo dt.12.07.2006 was issued to the petitioner alleging that he was responsible for alerting the staff and throwing away currency notes in and around the office. An enquiry officer was appointed and a detailed enquiry was conducted and the enquiry officer has given a finding that the charges against the charged officer are not proved. Thereafter, the disciplinary authority has referred the enquiry report to the Government for its comments/directions. The Government has intimated its dissenting note to the enquiry report and also proposed the punishment of withholding of two increments with cumulative effect. It is thereafter that the disciplinary authority has passed the impugned order of punishment. Challenging the same, the petitioner has filed O.A.No.3543 of 2012 before the A.P. Administrative Tribunal and after abolition of the Tribunal, the matter has been transferred to this Court and renumbered as W.P. (TR) No.44 of 2017.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the disciplinary authority has to apply his independent mind on the dissenting note and before imposing the punishment as he deems fit. But in this case, he has sought the comments/advice/directions of the Government on the enquiry report and that it is on the advice/direction of the Government that the punishment was imposed on the petitioner without considering the petitioner’s explanation. He placed reliance upon the following two decisions in support of his contentions.

(1) A.Laxminarayana Vs. District Collector (BCW), Karimnagar District and others, [2020 (5) ALD 458 (TS)]

(2) S.Hari Krishna Rao Vs. The Assistant General Manager and Disciplinary Authority, Allahabad Bank, Zonal Office, Himayathnagar, Hyderabad and others, [W.P.No.24077 of 2017 dt.27.02.2024]

4. Learned Government Pleader for Services-I, on the other hand, supported the averments made in the counter affidavit and submitted that an enquiry was conducted into the allegations against the petitioner on the basis of surprise check and report of ACB dt.07.04.1999 and though the enquiry officer has held the charges against the charged officers as not proved, the findings of the enquiry officer were disagreed to by the Transport Commissioner who held that the charges are proved against all the charged officers and imposed the penalty of withholding of two increments of pay with cumulative effect. It is submitted that the petitioner has retired from service on 31.05.2009 and thereafter, it was decided to recover the amount equivalent to the punishment of withholding of two increments with cumulative effect from the death- cum-retirement gratuity (DCRG) and accordingly a show-cause notice was issued vide Government Memo dt.13.10.2009. In the counter affidavit, the action of recovery from DCRG of the petitioner vide G.O.Rt.No.916 dt.25.09.2010 on the basis of the advice of the Government is justified.

5. The petitioner has also filed reply affidavit to the counter reiterating his stand in the writ petition.

6. Having regard to the rival contentions and the material on record, this Court finds that the enquiry officer has held the charges as not proved not only against the petitioner but also against the other charged officers. Though the disciplinary authority had the authority to disagree with the findings of the enquiry officer, it w