Judgment : The petitioner who has been working as a Junior Assistant in the revenue unit of the respondent filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, inter alia, assailing the orders of the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal in O.A.No.6492 of 1994, dated 10th December 1999, dismissing his application filed under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 wherein he assailed the impugned proceedings issued by the respondent No.1 dated 23-8-1993 confirming the hierarchy of remedies the imposition of punishment against him for stoppage of two annual grade increments with cumulative effect. Briefly the facts led to the present proceedings are that the petitioner who is an ex-service man was appointed as Junior Assistant on 29-6-1984 after due selection made through the process of Andhra Pradesh Public Service Commission, and accordingly he was posted as Village Officer. In pursuance of a complaint stated to have been made by the M.L.A of Ramannapet and Sarpanch of Mothkur against the petitioner alleging tampering of the entries in the pahanis, the Revenue Divisional Officer, Bhongir on 1-8-1990 visited the Mandal Revenue Office, Mothkur where the petitioner is working. Thereafter, the said Revenue Divisional Officer addressed a letter dated 6-8-1990 to the Collector observing that entries in the pahanis for the year 1960-61 to the effect of inclusion of Sri K.Sathaiah son of Chinna Ramulu against the land in Sy.Nos.415 and 460 with different ink and hence there is a tampering of record and sought for an enquiry. Thereupon, the Collector, Nalgonda appointed a Grain Purchasing Officer, Nalgonda as Enquiry Officer on 28-8-1990. The petitioner was placed under suspension pending enquiry on 12-10-1990. The enquiry officer vide Memo No.GP-2/22-90, dated 9-4-1991 framed two charges viz., Charge No.1 that the petitioner submitted a note on the application filed by Kalvala Narsimhulu son of Sathaiah stating that as per the revenue records in the pahanis for the years 1956-57, 1957-58, 1963-64 and 1967-68 the said applicant's name is appearing in pattedar column against the land in Sy.Nos.415 and 460, however, as per the pahanis of the said years the name of the application does not find against the said survey numbers. Thus, therefore the petitioner has submitted a misleading note resulting in issuance of copies of the pahanis for the above years to a person who is not entitled to take them, secondly, the Charge No.2 was that there is a failure on the part of the petitioner in the note dated 16-10-1989 pointing out such tampering, and therefore, it clearly indicates that the said tampering was got done in the pahanis by himself or with his knowledge. On 29-4-1991 the petitioner submitted explanation denying all the allegations in the charges. Thereafter, an enquiry was conducted by the said enquiry officer and the said officer submitted a report holding that in respect of charge No.1 since there is no specific denial by the petitioner except trying to throw the responsibility on the higher officers, and therefore, it was his legitimate duty to verify the records properly and submit correct note to his superior which was not done, hence, the said charge stood proved. However, in regard to the second charge, it was observed by the enquiry officer that there is no material evidence to establish that the said tampering was done by the petitioner, and in the absence of any such positive evidence the charge becomes doubtful. Further taking into consideration the inexperience of the petitioner, the enquiry officer gave the benefit of doubt to the delinquent on the said charge. Ultimately, it is only on the charge No.1 the finding was held partially against him. Thereupon, the Collector issued a show-cause notice on 28-7-1991 as to why he should not be removed from the service. The said show cause notice was served on the petitioner on 14-8-1991. On 3-9-1991 the petitioner submitted the explanation and ultimately the Collector by proceedings dated 12-1-1992 passed the orders of punishment of withholding two annual grade increments, one with cumulative effect and the other one without cumulative effect. Challenging the same, the petitioner filed the appeal before the Commissioner of Land Revenue, Hyderabad and the same was dismissed on 29-9-1992. The further appeal preferred by the petitioner to the Government was rejected on 23-8-1993 by the impugned memo which has been assailed before the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, in the said O.S.6492 of 1994, which was also dismissed. Hence, the writ petition. Heard Sri P.R.Prasad, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Services-II. The further appeal preferred by the petitioner to the Government was rejected on 23-8-1993 by the impugned memo which has been assailed before the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, in the said O.S.6492 of 1994, which was also dismissed. Hence, the writ petition. Heard Sri P.R.Prasad, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Services-II. On a conspectus of the submissions made from both sides where the main attack on behalf of the petitioner is in regard to the correctness of the procedureadopted in the enquiry and there being a failure on the part of the authorities to provide him the proper opportunity or even to produce any evidence or material in support of the charges, the question which boils down for consideration is as to whether on the facts and circumstances there is a failure on the part of the authorities, especially, the enquiry officer in holding a proper enquiry as contemplated under the Rules and if there is any denial of proper opportunity to the petitioner? In support of the aforesaid contention the main provision of law, which has been relied is Rule 19 (2) of the Andhra Pradesh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1991, which reads as follows: Rule 19 (2) :- A disciplinary authority competent under these rules to impose any of the penalties specified in clauses (i) to (v) of Rule 9 or in Rule 10 may institute disciplinary proceedings against any Government servant for the imposition of any of the penalties specified in [clauses (vi to 9x) of Rule 9 notwithstanding that such disciplinary authority is not competent under these rules to impose any of the latter penalties. On a bare reading of the aforesaid provision a due procedure has been contemplated in respect of the enquiries to be conducted against a delinquent, there cannot be any dispute to the aforesaid steps in the process of an enquiry. However, it has to be seen on the facts of this case whether there is any deviation from the procedure. As far as the Charge No.1 is concerned, the enquiry officer sought to proceed on the ground that there is no specific denial and the same was taken into consideration by the Tribunal. Even in this Court there is no denial to the fact that the petitioner submitted the said note. As far as the Charge No.1 is concerned, the enquiry officer sought to proceed on the ground that there is no specific denial and the same was taken into consideration by the Tribunal. Even in this Court there is no denial to the fact that the petitioner submitted the said note. The only question is whether there is any lapse on his part in pointing out the tampering which was found. Though the case of the petitioner sought to rest in trying to shift the blame to the head assistant and the Mandal Revenue Officer who acted on the said note and issued pahanis on the ground that they also should be proceeded against since there is a similar such lapse occurred on their part. However, it is to be seen that there being no denial of the preparation of the said note by the petitioner, which has been accepted by the higher-ups, the fact remains that the said tampering or any doubt in this regard is found absent in the said note put up by the petitioner. There is no reason as to why the same should be found absent nor there is any explanation on the part of the petitioner as to why he could not possibly bring to the notice of the higher-ups in the said note about the said tampering, which even on a perusal of the record, it was found that it can be seen by naked eye and that too with a different ink. Therefore, the approach of the enquiry officer and the consideration of the similar point by the Tribunal in assessing the plea as to want of enquiry or examining any witness in support, is perfectly justified and in order. The said Charge No.1, does not in fact on the face of it require any further establishment having regard to the absence of denial as to the authorship of the said note. The only thing, which could have been possibly explained by the petitioner is as to why the said tampering aspect is found absent in the said note, which is lacking. Therefore, it cannot be said that for the purpose of this charge, there is any further probe is required nor any examination of the witnesses on behalf of the authorities to establish the said charge against the petitioner. Therefore, it cannot be said that for the purpose of this charge, there is any further probe is required nor any examination of the witnesses on behalf of the authorities to establish the said charge against the petitioner. Thus, the necessity or requirement of any enquiry in proving any charge and examining any witness or material in support thereof depends on the nature of charge and the explanation given by the delinquent officer. On the face of it, it cannot be said that in every case irrespective there is denial or no denial, the enquiry should go in the same speed, as one would require for establishing the charge by examining the witnesses where there is a total denial on the each and every allegation and also the authorship. Where as in the present case, there being no denial as to the note put up by the petitioner and the only gray area which found absent about the tampering of the record, does not require any further probe since the said tampering exist on the record. Even at this stage, after processing through the appeal, further appeal and also an approach to the tribunal, there is no explanation forthcoming on behalf of the petitioner as to why he could not possibly mention about the tampering or any doubt in regard to those entries especially when it can be seen to a naked eye. Thus, we are of the view that the plea set up on behalf of the petitioner that there is no enquiry in this regard properly by the enquiry officer and no witness is being examined, does not hold any water or any justification. Hence, we are not prepared to accept the same and the same is accordingly rejected. Coming to the other charge, the enquiry officer himself has held that there being no direct evidence available on record as to raising any pointer to the petitioner about the process of such tampering in the record, it was held in his favour and the same is not being assailed by the respondent herein by way of appeal or further appeal or even before the tribunal by any separate application. Therefore, the said finding which is a fact, has become final and does not require any probe into the same nor there is any grievance as such on behalf of the petitioner in this regard. Therefore, the said finding which is a fact, has become final and does not require any probe into the same nor there is any grievance as such on behalf of the petitioner in this regard. Therefore, taking into consideration the totality of the facts and circumstances, and especially, where the charge No.1 about the failure on the part of the petitioner as to basic obligation to bring to the notice of higher ups in regard to any such irregularities, there has been proper punishment of withholding the increments, which is perfectly justified and it cannot be said that the same is not commensurate or has no nexus to the gravity of charge as such. In the above circumstances, we hold that there are no merits in the above writ petition nor there is any error to warrant any interference by this Court. Hence, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs.