JUDGMENT L. Narasimha Reddy, J. The 1st respondent herein (for short ‘the respondent’) worked as In-charge Sub-Registrar at Bhongir in June, 2006. In relation to the registrations effected by her, during that tenure, the Anti-Corruption Bureau (A.C.B.) conducted a surprise check and submitted a report to the District Registrar, recommending departmental action against the 1st respondent. The allegation was that though a document is sale deed in its purport, stamp duty is levied by treating it as a deed of assignment. Similar allegations were made against four Sub-Registrars. An Enquiry Officer was appointed to enquire into the charges. He submitted a report on 24.06.2008, holding that the charge framed against the respondent was not proved. 2. The disciplinary authority did not take any decision as such on the report of the enquiry officer. He appears to have forwarded the file to the Vigilance Department through the Commissioner and Inspector General, the 2nd petitioner herein. The 2nd petitioner, in turn, addressed letter dated 17-10-2008 to the Vigilance Commissioner, soliciting his opinion in the matter. Through his memo dated 09-02-2009, the Vigilance Commissioner requested the 2nd petitioner to communicate the disagreement factors on the report of the enquiry officer. Acting on the same, the 2nd petitioner issued a show cause notice, dated 08.03.2009 to the respondent, requiring her to explain as to why a different view be not taken on the finding recorded by the Enquiry Officer. On receipt of the notice, the respondent submitted her explanation. Not satisfied with that, the 2nd petitioner passed an order, dated 10.09.2009, imposing the punishment of stoppage of one increment, without cumulative effect. 3. The respondent challenged the said order by filing O.A.No.7448 of 2010 before the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad. She pleaded various grounds, and pointed out procedural lapses. The O.A. was opposed by the petitioners. Through its order, dated 03.01.2013, the Tribunal allowed the O.A. and has set aside the order of punishment. Hence, this writ petition. 4. Learned Government for Services-II submits that being a superior authority, it is competent for the 2nd petitioner to examine the record and to differ with the findings of the enquiry officer. Through its order, dated 03.01.2013, the Tribunal allowed the O.A. and has set aside the order of punishment. Hence, this writ petition. 4. Learned Government for Services-II submits that being a superior authority, it is competent for the 2nd petitioner to examine the record and to differ with the findings of the enquiry officer. He contends that the Tribunal has verified the contents of the show cause notice issued by the 2nd petitioner, proposing to differ with the findings of the enquiry officer, as though it is an appellate authority, and on the sole ground that the reasons mentioned in the show cause notice are not proper; has set aside the order of punishment. 5. Learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, submits that the entire procedure adopted by the petitioners was improper, and the order of punishment passed by the 2nd petitioner is totally untenable in law. He contends that it is only after the 3rd petitioner, the disciplinary authority, has taken any final view in the matter, that an occasion would have arisen for the 2nd petitioner to examine the matter, either on appeal or revision, being filed before him, or in exercise of suo motu powers. He submits that while the 3rd petitioner has abdicated his powers, the 2nd petitioner has usurped on the same. It is also his case that the steps taken by the 2nd petitioner do not fit into any of the provisions of the Rules. 6. To the extent the 3rd petitioner has initiated the disciplinary proceedings against the respondent; there cannot be any objection, notwithstanding the fact that they were based only upon a surprise check, conducted by the officials of the ACB. As a matter of fact, the respondent also did not assail the initiation of proceedings and has participated therein by submitting the explanation. The 3rd petitioner appointed an enquiry officer and a detailed departmental enquiry was conducted. A report was submitted holding that the charge is not proved. 7. Once the enquiry officer submitted his report, it was the obligation of the 3rd petitioner to form an opinion, either to agree or to disagree with the findings in the report. The 3rd petitioner accepted the report and has taken a decision to exonerate the respondent, of the charges. Having taken that decision, he forwarded the matter to the 2nd petitioner, through a letter dated 04-09-2008. The 3rd petitioner accepted the report and has taken a decision to exonerate the respondent, of the charges. Having taken that decision, he forwarded the matter to the 2nd petitioner, through a letter dated 04-09-2008. The relevant portion thereof reads, “On perusal of the Inquiry Report along with the connected material, as a disciplinary authority, I accept the findings of the Inquiry Officer in toto. The deficit pointed out, was completely collected from the parties. In respect of Charged Officer-I, he treated the instruments as sale deeds, before the ACB authorities spot inspected the property, and collected the deficit amounts from the parties. In respect of other Charged Officers, the deficit amounts have been collected from the parties. In view of the total collection of deficit amounts from the parties, I accept the findings of Regular Inquiry officer toto. In view of the above discussions in detail, I propose the following punishments against the Charged Officers hereunder as shown against their names as per A.P.C.S (C.C.&A.) Rules, 1991: Sl.No. Name of the Employee 1. xx xx 2. xx xx 3. Ghousia Begum, Charged Officer-I Senior Assistant and former I/c Sub-Registrar, Bhongir, present Senior Assistant at RO Hyderabad Exonerated 4. xx xx 8. The 2nd respondent has simply forwarded this, to the Vigilance Commissioner through his letter dated 17-10-2008. The operative portion of the letter reads, “Through reference 6th cited, the disciplinary authority has submitted his proposals that while accepting the findings of the R.E.O and exonerated the C.O. I to IV from the Charges leveled against him. After receipt of the findings from the D.I.G (R&S) Hyderabad-I and on examination of the charges C.O’s explanation, R.E.O. report and findings of the disciplinary authority it is recommended that the findings of the D.I.G (R&S) Hyderabad-I may be accepted against the C.O.-I Sri M.Ravinder that he may be exonerated from the charges since he has collected the deficit amounts under section 41-A of I.S. Act prior to the surprise check conducted by the ACB authorities but the remaining C.Os i.e., C.O.-II, III and IV, cannot be exonerated since they have collected the DSD Amounts only after deficit pointed out by the ACB authorities. Therefore, it is proposed to impose punishment of stoppage of one increment without cumulative effect for the C.O’s II, III and IV respectively. Hence it is requested to give advice in this case. Therefore, it is proposed to impose punishment of stoppage of one increment without cumulative effect for the C.O’s II, III and IV respectively. Hence it is requested to give advice in this case. The relevant material is enclosed herewith for perusal and necessary orders in the matter.” 9. The Vigilance Commissioner gave his opinion through his letter dated 09-02-2009, and it reads, “The attention of the Commissioner & Inspector General of Registration & Stamps, is invited to the subject matter. He is requested to communicate disagreement factors on E.O.’s Report in respect of the charges to the respective Charged Officers, and to obtain their explanations and to examine them and then submit his report to Government together with his recommendation for imposition of punishment” 10. Acting on this memo, the 2nd petitioner issued show cause notice dated 18-03-2009. He has just reproduced the paragraphs from somewhere and asked the respondent to submit her explanation. After receiving the explanation, the 2nd petitioner passed the order, imposing the punishment of stoppage of one increment, without cumulative effect. 11. Once the 3rd petitioner has taken a decision to accept the report and to drop the proceedings, the matter ought to have ended at that. There was absolutely no basis or justification for him to forward the matter to the 2nd petitioner, who happens to be the appellate authority. The 2nd petitioner ought not to have entertained the matter. It is no doubt true that Rule 40 of the A.P. Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1991 (for short ‘the Rules’) confers power of revision upon the Government or the head of the department. Suo motu powers are also conferred. However, the exercise undertaken by the 2nd petitioner does not fit into that provision, at all. It is only when an appeal is preferred by an aggrieved employee, or when he has chosen to exercise suo motu powers, if any, that there would have been an occasion for him to deal with the matter. 12. An attempt is made by the learned Government Pleader to trace the power of the 2nd petitioner to Rule 18 of the Rules. It reads as under: “Rule 18. 12. An attempt is made by the learned Government Pleader to trace the power of the 2nd petitioner to Rule 18 of the Rules. It reads as under: “Rule 18. Lower authority not to reopen case: Higher authority can exercise power:––(1) Where in any case a higher authority has imposed or declined to impose a penalty under Rule 11, 12 or 14, a lower authority shall have no jurisdiction to proceed under these rules in respect of the same case. (2) Where in any case a lower authority has imposed a penalty or exonerated a member of a service, it shall not debar a higher authority from exercising his powers under these rules in respect of the same case. The order of such higher authority shall supersede any order passed by a lower authority in respect of the same case.” 13. The said rule directs that in case a lower authority has imposed the penalty on a member of a service or exonerated him, it shall not debar a higher authority from exercising his powers under the Rules, in the same case. The exercise of power under this rule would have been possible in the present case, if only the 3rd petitioner passed a specific order, dropping the proceedings against the respondent. He has just expressed his opinion and without passing any order as such, has forwarded the matter to the 2nd petitioner. 14. Assuming that there was an occasion for the 2nd petitioner to exercise powers in the matter, he was not at all entitled to issue the show cause notice, proposing to differ with the findings of the enquiry officer. It is only the prerogative of the disciplinary authority, whether or not to accept the findings of an enquiry officer. He alone can differ with the findings of the enquiry officer, that too by following the procedure prescribed by law. The appellate, or revisional authority can examine the matter, only with reference to the record, that is already available before them. Neither Rule 18, nor Rule 40 of the Rules confer the power upon a superior, or revisional authority, to differ with the findings of an enquiry officer, particularly, when the appointing authority has accepted the same. Added to this, the content of the show cause notice was also devoid of any merits. 15. The order passed by the Tribunal does not warrant interference. Added to this, the content of the show cause notice was also devoid of any merits. 15. The order passed by the Tribunal does not warrant interference. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. 16. The miscellaneous petition filed in this writ petition shall also stand disposed of.