WP/20864/2006 of The District Manager, Vs K. Sattiraju, Retd. Mandal Revenue Officer, on 8 December 2025

1. THE DISTRICT CORPORATION LIM

1. K SATTIRAJU RE CADRE) R/O. G DISTRICT.

2. GOVERNMENT OF REVENUE (SER.II)

3. THE COMMISSIO COMMISSIONER O DISTRICT.

4. THE MANDAL R GODAVARI DISTRI Petition under Articl circumstances stated in pleased toto issue a wri calling for the records r Tribunal in OA No. 3275 2001, dated 2-12-2003 E HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRAD AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) AY, THE NINTH DAY OF DECEMBER THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT RI JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVEND BLE SRI JUSTICE TUHIN KUMAR G RIT PETITION NO: 20864/2006 MANAGER,, A.P. STATE CIVI MITED, KAKINADA. AND TD MANDAL REVENUE OFFICER ANDHINAGAR, KAKINADA, EAST F A P, REP BY ITS PRINCIPAL DAPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, HY ONER OF LAND REVENUE, ( OF LAND ADMINISTRATION) EAS EVENUE OFFICER, KARAPA MA ICT. ...RES le 226 of the Constitution of India pra the affidavit filed therewith, the High t, order or direction more in the natu relating to the judgement of the A.P 5 of 1998 with V.M.A. Nos. 338 of and its connected orders of Commis DESH

R DRANATH ROY GEDELA IL SUPPLIES ...PETITIONER , (TAHSILDAR T GODAVARI SECRETARY, YDERABAD. (NOW CHIEF ST GODAVARI ANDAL, EAST SPONDENT(S): aying that in the h Court may be ure of Certiorari P. Administrative 1999 and 35 of ssioner of Land

Revenue in Ref. No. X2/5365/88, dated 15-3-1989 and structk down the same as illegal, arbitrary, unjust and contrary to C.C.A. Rules and hold that the punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority i.e. District Collector, E.G. Kakinada in Proc. Ref.No. A5/1365/85, dt. 15-7-1998 are perfectly legal, valid and in order and pass such other and further orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to dispense with the filing of the certified copy of Judgement of the A.P. Administrative Tribunal in OA No. 3275 of 1998 with VMA Nos. 338 of 1999 and 35 of 2001 dt. 2-12-2003 and its connected orders of commissioner of Land Revenue in Ref. No. X2/5365/88 dt. 15-3-1989 for the present and pass in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the opeation of the impugned Proc. Ref.No. X2/5365/88, dt. 15-3- 1989 issued by the Commissioner of Land Revenue, A.P., Hyderabad including the operation of the Judgment of the A.P. Hyderabad including the operation of the judgment of the A.P. Administrative Tribunal in O.A.No. 3275 of 1998 dt,. 2-12-2003 and pass such other order or orders in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased Counsel for the Petitioner:

1. MD SALEEM Counsel for the Respondent(S):

1. GP FOR REVENUE

The Court made the following: ORDER: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice Cheekati Manavendranath Roy)

The petitioner challenges the legal validity of the order dated 02.12.2003 passed in O.A.No.3275 of 1998 on the file of the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad, whereby the demand notice issued for recovery of a sum of Rs.1,63,332.47/- against the 1st respondent-employee was set-aside.

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. None appeared for the respondents even though the matter is listed under the caption ‘for dismissal’.

3. Facts relevant to dispose of the writ petition may briefly be stated as follows:

The 1st respondent was originally an employee in the Revenue Department worked as Junior Assistant. He was promoted as Deputy Tahsildar. While he was working as Deputy Tahsildar in Rajahmundry during the year 1982-83 he was entrusted with the distribution of Public Distribution System rice and sugar (hereinafter referred as ‘PDS’, ‘for short’). It was found that he did not properly hand over the stock of rice and sugar to the concerned officer and the balance sheet is not properly maintained, which resulted into loss of Rs.1,63,332.47/- to the state exchequer on account of his negligence. Therefore, considering it as an act of misconduct on his part, disciplinary enquiry was ordered against him after framing relevant charges against him for the said act of misconduct and enquiry officer was appointed to conduct enquiry against him on the six charges levelled against him. In the enquiry that was conducted, all the charges are held to be proved. The disciplinary authority has accepted the report of the enquiry officer and imposed punishment of reverting the 1st respondent from the post of Deputy Tahsildar to the post of Junior Assistant and also ordered for recovery of loss incurred by the petitioner-Corporation.

4. Aggrieved by the said punishment imposed against the 1st respondent, he has preferred an appeal to the Commissioner of land Revenue i.e., the 3rd respondent. In the appeal, the punishment was modified treating the suspension period as substantive punishment. The punishment imposed against him reverting him to the rank of Junior Assistant was set-aside. The appellate authority has also set-aside the order of recovery that was passed by the disciplinary authority. Thereafter, the petitioner-Corporation initiated proceedings against the 1st respondent for recovery of a sum of Rs.1,63,332.47/- being the loss incurred by the Corporation on account of the act of negligence committed by the 1st respondent under the Revenue Recovery Act. The 1st respondent challenged the said proceedings initiated under the Act before the Tribunal. The Tribunal, by the impugned order, has set-aside the said demand notice issued for recovery of the aforesaid sum of Rs.1,63,332.47/-. The Tribunal at para No.10 of the impugned order held that the appellate authority, who is the Commissioner of Land Revenue in his orders dated 05.12.1989 has set-aside the punishment including the recovery and only upheld the punishment ordered by the District Collector to the extent of treating the period of suspension undergone by the 1st respondent as substantive punishment and as such, when the order of recovery is set-aside by the appellate authority that a demand notice again for recovery of the said sum cannot be issued.

5. We do not find any legal flaw or infirmity in the impugned order of the Tribunal. Though the order of the appellate authority i.e., the Commissioner of Land Revenue is not placed before the Tribunal or before this Court to ascertain what is the true effect of the said order, it is admitted before this Court by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the appellate authority has set-aside the order of recovery. When that be the case, when the order of recovery was also set-aside, the petitioner-Corporation cannot issue any demand notice to the 1st respondent for recovery of an amount of

Rs.1,63,332.47/-. Therefore, the impugned order of the Tribunal is perfectly sustainable under law and it warrants no interference in this writ petition.

6. In fine, the Writ Petition is dismissed affirming the order of the Tribunal dated 02.12.2003 passed in O.A.No.3275 of 1998. There shall be no order as to costs.

As a sequel, Interlocutory Applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.

________________________________________ JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY

_____________________________ JUSTICE TUHIN KUMAR GEDELA

Date: 09.12.2025 MDP