THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE PULLA KARTHIK

ORDER:

This Writ Petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is filed seeking the following relief:

“… to issue an appropriate Writ, Order of direction, preferably one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus and to declare the impugned proceedings bearing MZ.O.No.373/2024 / Rc.No.PR/Appeal/MZ- II.481/2024, dt. 20-09-2024 of the 4threspondent without application of mind and without taking into any of the observations made by the Hon’ble Tribunal in orders in O.A.No.8075 of 2012, dt. 05-12-2014 while passing final orders by certain observations dt.28-08-2023 in remitting the matter back in W.P.No.25027 of 2015 by this Hon’ble Court, without neither following nor observing any of the above said orders the present impugned rejection orders were passed, the saidaction of the respondents is highly illegal, arbitrary, unreasonable, discriminatory, without any application of mind and also in violation of principles of natural justice and also in violation of Art. 14, 16 & 21 of the Constitution of India and declare the same as bad-in-law and set aside the same consequently direct the respondents to release the with held increments and other consequential benefits for which the petitioner is entitled and pass…”

2. The brief facts of the case are that while the petitioner was working as Police Constable at P.S. Devarakadra, a charge memo dated 23.05.2008 was issued to three officers, including the petitioner herein, for which, the petitioner submitted his written statement, denying the charges. However, having been dissatisfied with the said explanation, a common enquiry was conducted and the enquiry officer submitted his report dated 30.10.2008, holding the charges leveled against the petitioner and two others as proved. Thereafter, the disciplinary authority furnished a copy of the enquiry report to the petitioner vide Memo dated 25.11.2008, and obtained detailed remarks. Subsequently, respondent No.2 imposed the punishment of ‘RTSP by 1 stage for 2 years with effect on future increments and pension’ vide proceedings dated 15.01.2009. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner preferred an appeal before respondent No.4 on 18.02.2009, and on consideration of the same, the said penalty was modified to that of ‘Postponement of Increments for one year with effect on future increments and pension’ vide proceedings dated 02.02.2010. Thereafter, the petitioner had also preferred a revision before respondent No.5 on 19.04.2010, which was rejected vide G.O.Rt.No.134 dated 09.03.2012. Assailing the same, the petitioner, along with the co-delinquent, approached the erstwhile Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal and filed O.A.Nos.8075 and 8007 of 2012, which were allowed vide order dated 05.12.2014, and the punishment order was set aside, with a direction to the respondents to release the withheld increments and other consequential benefits to the petitioner. However, aggrieved by the said order, the respondents carried the matter to this Court by filing W.P.Nos.25027 and 21989 of 2015, which were disposed of vide order dated 28.02.2023, setting aside the order of the Tribunal, and the matter was remanded back to the appellate authority to re-examine the modified punishment in terms of the observations made by the Tribunal, and to pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. Pursuant thereto, respondent No.4 has passed the present impugned order vide proceedings in Rc.No.PR/Appeal/MZ-

II/481/2024 dated 20.09.2024. Hence, the present writ petition.

3. Heard Sri C. Rajasekhar Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, and learned Government Pleader for Services (Home), on behalf of the respondents.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Division Bench of this Court, while disposing of W.P.No.25027 and 21989 of 2015, was pleased to set aside the order of the Tribunal only on the ground that the Tribunal was not justified in straightaway setting aside the modified punishment, instead