JUDGMENT

S.B. Sinha, J.—

1. Leave granted.

2. Appellant herein was a Deputy Tehsildar, Director of Civil Supplies, Punganoor in the District of Chittoor. He worked in the said capacity from 11.5.1992 to 21.1.1993. During the aforementioned period, Essential Commodities meant for public distribution were supplied to the private parties; the price whereof is stated to be Rs.12,46,523.60. He was placed under suspension on 29.1.1993. A departmental proceeding was initiated. An enquiry officer was appointed for the said purpose. He was found guilty in the said departmental proceedings, relying on or on the basis whereof, an order of dismissal was passed on 21.10.1994.

3. An appeal preferred by the appellant thereagainst was also dismissed. He filed an original application before the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal. On the premise that the enquiry officer was not competent to frame the charges, the order of dismissal was set aside.

4. The State filed a writ petition thereagainst before the High Court. By reason of the impugned judgment, the said judgment and order of the Tribunal was set aside, directing :

“We have considered the contentions of the learned counsel with reference to the APCS (CC & A) Rules. As can be seen from the Rules, appointment of Enquiry Officer comes into play only after the explanation is filed to the charge sheet and decision is to be taken by the Disciplinary Authority to conduct further enquiry. In the instant case, the Enquiry Officer had himself framed the charges which goes contrary to the Rules 20 and 21 of the APCS (CC & A) Rules. Under those circumstances, we do not find any ground to interfere with the order of the Tribunal, but, however, it is contended by the learned Government Pleader that giving direction to the Department to reinstate the petitioner is only misconceived. Admittedly, the employee was under suspension prior to the order of dismissal. Under those circumstances, the Tribunal ought not to have directed reinstatement of the petitioner. We are in agreement with the contention raised by the learned Government Pleader. When further action is sought to be taken in accordance with the Rules, the Tribunal ought to have left the matter to the discretion of the authorities. Moreover, in the instant case, the employee was already under suspension from 1993 and the order of dismissal was set aside on the technical ground that the Enquiry Officer was not competent to frame the charges. Under those circumstances, we are inclined to modify the order relating to reinstatement and we direct that 1st respondent shall be deemed to have continued under suspension impugned order.”

5. Appellant is before us aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the said directions.

6. Indisputably, the enquiry proceedings did not make much progress. He was allowed to superannuate. It is on the aforementioned premise, Mr. D. Rama Krishna Reddy, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant, would contend that the impugned judgment of the High Court should be set aside and the disciplinary proceedings may not be directed to be continued.

7. Mr. I. Venkatanarayana, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the State, however, urged that despite superannuation of the appellant, the departmental proceedings which were pending against him must be held to be continuing in terms of the provisions of Andhra Pradesh Pension Code and, thus, there is no legal impediment in imposing any punishment withdrawing the whole or part of the pension so as to enable the State go recover the amount which it suffered owing to the acts of omission and commission on the part of the appellant.

8. The disciplinary proceeding was initiated against the appellant in terms of the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules. Part-V of the said Rules lay down the procedure for imposing penalties. Indisputably, in the departmental proceedings, it is incumbent to draw up the substance of the