L. Narasimha Reddy, J.@mdashThe petitioner was initially appointed as Attender in the A.P. Administrative Tribunal, on 15-02-1979. Thereafter, he was promoted as Driver on 08-01-1992. An Articles of charge was issued to him on 11-07-2003, framing two charges: The first charge was that he did not verify the petrol in the vehicle bearing No. AP 11-9100, when he was on duty, on 09-04-2003 and on account of the stoppage of the vehicle on the way, the Member of the Tribunal, who was travelling in it, was put to serious inconvenience. The second charge was that he is suspected to have pilfered the petrol. The petitioner submitted his explanation on 14-08-2003, denying the charges. Not satisfied with the explanation submitted by the petitioner, the Registrar, the respondent herein appointed the Assistant Registrar, as Enquiry Officer. The enquiry officer submitted his report on 25-09-2003, holding that the first charge is proved and the second charge is not proved. On receipt of the report of the enquiry officer, the respondent agreed with the finding on the first charge, but proposed to differ with the finding on the second charge. Accordingly, he passed an ''order'' dated 30-01-2004, requiring the respondent to submit his explanation within ten days. The petitioner submitted his explanation on 09-02-2004. On a consideration of the same, the respondent passed an order dated 23-02-2004, imposing the punishment of reversion to the post of Attender.
2. The respondent filed O.A. No. 1709 of 2004 before the A.P. Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad, challenging the order of punishment. The Tribunal dismissed the O.A., through order dated 25-01-2005. Hence, this writ petition.
3. Heard Sri J.R. Manohar Rao, learned Government Pleader for Services-I.
4. The two charges framed against the petitioner were in relation to his functioning as Driver of a vehicle of the Tribunal. The charges read:
Article-I: Sri D. Balraj, while functioning as Driver when deputed to drive the official car bearing No. AP11 9100 which was allotted on requisition to Hon''ble Sri G.S.R.C.V. Prasad Rao, Member (A) on 09-04-2003 did not verify the petrol in the vehicle which resulted in stranded of vehicle in the middle of the way in scorching sun and caused much inconvenience to the Hon''ble Member. This shows his negligent attitude and lack of devotion to duty. He violated Rule 3 of the A.P. Civil Service (Conduct) Rules, 1964.
Article-II: During the course of period and while functioning as Driver of the official car AP11 9100 the said Sri D. Balraj, Driver is suspected to have pilfered petrol, since, contrary to the information given by him, the car ran out of petrol about 60 kms less of the minimum estimate mileage, hence there is clear case of suspected pilferage of petrol. Sri D. Balraj, Driver, violated Rule 3(1) and Rule 3(2) of the A.P. Civil Service (Conduct) Rules, 1964.
5. The enquiry officer held that the first charge is proved, but not the second one. It is always competent for the disciplinary authority to differ with the findings of the enquiry officer. In such cases, the disciplinary authority has to require the employee to show cause as to why a different view be not taken, on a charge, which was held by the enquiry officer as not proved. It is only after receiving the explanation from the employee, that a final opinion on that has to be indicated. In the instant case, however, the respondent has undertaken extensive discussion in his order (notice) dated 30-01-2004, finding fault with the report of the enquiry officer in relation to charge No. 2, and ultimately observed,
Hence, I am unable to agree with the conclusions of the enquiry officer that the charged officer is entitled for benefit of doubt, it is a concept unknown to the departmental enquiries.
Further, the concluding portion reads;
For the reasons stated above, I hold that the charged officer is guilty of both articles of charges. Office is directed to serve a copy of this order and also the report dated 25-09-2003 submitted by the enquiry officer on the charged officer and he shall offer his explanation within 10 (ten) days from the date of receipt of these two orders...
6. A basic fallacy has crept into the entire proceedings. If the respondent took the view that both the charges are proved, there was nothing, which the petitioner was expected to. The issue was pre-judged and the explanation invited from the petitioner was reduced to an empty formality. The respondent ought to have required the petitioner to explain as to why, a different view be not taken on the second charge. Unfortunately, the Tribunal on its judicial side did not take note of this basic infirmity in the entire proceedings, and the punishment of reversion against the petitioner was upheld.
7. In view of the serious infirmity pointed out above, the second charge cannot be said to have been proved, and the finding of the enquiry officer becomes final. The finding on the first charge remains. The allegation was only in relation to the verification of the petrol in the car. The charge memo itself discloses that the car was under the use of another Member of the Tribunal and small quantities of five to ten litres fuel was put into it on being sanctioned by the Tribunal. The condition of the vehicle is another aspect. We are of the view that the punishment of stoppage of one increment without cumulative effect would meet the ends of justice.
8. Hence, we allow the writ petition and set aside the order passed by the Tribunal. However, the punishment of stoppage of one increment without cumulative effect shall stand imposed upon the petitioner. The miscellaneous petition filed in this writ petition shall also stand disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.
