ORDER: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ghulam Mohammed This writ petition is filed seeking a writ of mandamus declaring the impugned order No. TA/STA/56/1-4/94/24, dated 12.12.1995 issued by the Assistant General Manager (Admn.) O/o. the Chief General Manager, Telecom, A.P. Circle, Hyderabad and the appellate order No. TA/STA/56/2/1/96, dated 30.12.1996 issued by the Deputy General Manager (Admn.) O/o. the Chief General Manager, Telecom, A.P. Hyderabad, which has been affirmed by the Central Administrative Tribunal Hyderabad Bench, Hyderabad in O.A.No.633/97 dated 17.03.1999 and in Review R.A.No.33/99 in O.A.No.633/97 dated 01.07.1999, as illegal, arbitrary, discriminatory and violative of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution and consequently declare that the punishment of withholding of one increment with cumulative effect vide order No.TA/STA/56/1-4/94/26, dated 12.12.1995 and the Appellate Order No.TA/STA/56/2-1/96, dated 30.12.1996 as null and void. 2. The grievance of the petitioner is that he was appointed as Telecom Office Assistant in the Department of Telecommunications w.e.f.01.12.1978 and since then he was working in the said post without any complaints. Later, after completion of 16 years of service first time bound promotion was given pursuant to the judgment dated 16.09.1998 in O.A.No.593 of 1997. While so, respondent No.1 has placed him under suspension contemplating disciplinary proceedings against him. However, the order of suspension was revoked by order dated 03.01.1995. 3. Respondent No.1 by his proceedings dated 03.01.1995 issued a charge memo to the petitioner. The misconduct alleged against him is as under:- "That the said Sri D. Purushottama Rao, while functioning as TOA (G), O/o. CGMT, A.P. Hyderabad has manhandled Sri D. Harinath Babu, Assistant Director (TT-S), O/o. CGMT, Hyderabad. On 08.12.1994, at about 5.40 P.M. Sri D. Purushothama Rao, TOA(G), O/o. the CGMT, Hyderabad has tried to beat Sri D. Harinath Babu, AD (TT-S), CGMT Hyderabad at the main gate of the office premises. While Sri D. Harinath Babu was waiting for bus, on the other side of the road, Sri D. Purushothama Rao repeated the same things. By the above act, the said D. Purushothama Rao TOA (G), O/o. CGMT A.P., Hyderabad did not maintain absolute integrity and behaved in a manner which is unbecoming of a Government servant and contravened Rule-3(1), and Rule 3 (1) (iii) of CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964". 4. The petitioner has submitted his explanation dated 23.01.1995 denying the charge. A detailed enquiry was conducted. 4. The petitioner has submitted his explanation dated 23.01.1995 denying the charge. A detailed enquiry was conducted. The petitioner participated in the enquiry and the enquiry officer submitted his report, dated 26.05.1995 finding the petitioner guilty of the charge. The petitioner submitted representation dated 29.06.1995 to the findings of the enquiry officer. 5. Later, the first respondent after perusing the representation of the petitioner, report of the enquiry officer and the enquiry records, agreed with the findings of the enquiry officer, and accordingly, issued proceedings dated 12.12.1995 imposing the penalty of withholding one annual increment of the petitioner accruing after 12.12.1995 for a period of five years with cumulative effect. 6. Questioning the same, the petitioner has filed O.A.No.633 of 1997 before the A.P. Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad. The Tribunal on a consideration of the material on record declined to interfere with the order of the disciplinary authority. 7. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that the alleged misconduct is not relatable to the official duties to be discharged by the petitioner, as such, the order of punishment cannot be sustained. At any rate, it is argued by the learned counsel that the punishment imposed is not commensurate with the misconduct alleged to have been established. 8. Sri R.S.Murthy, learned counsel for the respondents supported the order of the Tribunal. 9. We have carefully gone through the order of the Tribunal and also the material on record including the report of the enquiry officer. In our considered opinion, the Tribunal has rightly considered the matter in a proper perspective and rightly upheld the order of punishment. 10. No doubt, the alleged misconduct is not relatable to the official functions to be discharged by the petitioner. But the behaviour of the petitioner with his superior officer at the main gate of the office premises will certainly contravene the provisions of A.P. C.S. (Conduct) Rules, 1964. Learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to point out how the order is illegal and arbitrary and cannot be sustained. Unless there is perversity in the appreciation of the evidence by the disciplinary authority or that no prudent person could have arrived at such findings, the findings rendered by the disciplinary authority, which have been affirmed by the Tribunal, cannot be interfered with by this Court in exercise of the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. Unless there is perversity in the appreciation of the evidence by the disciplinary authority or that no prudent person could have arrived at such findings, the findings rendered by the disciplinary authority, which have been affirmed by the Tribunal, cannot be interfered with by this Court in exercise of the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. We, therefore, see no ground to interfere with the order of the Tribunal. 11. We, however, make it clear that the impugned punishment shall be treated as stoppage of one increment for a period of five years and not beyond. If for any reason the increment of the petitioner has not been restored after a lapse of five years, the respondents shall restore the same and pay the arrears thereof. 12.With the above observation, the writ petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.