JUDGMENT : 1. Since the issues involved in these two Writ Petitions are the same and contentions raised are also the same, this Court deems it appropriate to dispose of these two Writ Petitions by way of this Common Order. 2. Respondents in the Original Applications on the file of the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal are the petitioners in these writ petitions. 3. W.P. No.44023 of 2017 challenges the order passed by the Tribunal dated 29.01.2014 in O.A. No.2776 of 2011 with V.M.A. No.632 of 2013. In W.P. No.43882 of 2017 challenge is to the order dated 08.10.2013 passed by the Tribunal in O.A. No.2768 of 2011 with V.M.A. No.159 of By way of the orders impugned in these Writ Petitions, the Tribunal allowed the Original Applications filed by the respondents herein by setting aside the show cause notice dated 20.10.2010 issued by the State Government. 4. When the applicants/respondents in these two Writ Petitions were working as Assistant Motor Vehicles Inspectors, the Transport Commissioner, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad, issued charge memos dated 29.10.2008, framing the Articles of Charges against them. Apart from the-respondents herein, the Commissioner also issued charge memos to as many as six others. In response to the said charge memos, the respondents herein, so also the other six individuals, submitted their explanations. The State Government, vide G.O.Rt.No.205, Transport Roads and Buildings (Vig.III.2) Department, dated 26.02.2010, dropped further action against the respondents/applicants herein with a warning to be more careful in future on the ground that the discrepancies being minimal. The State Government also issued an order vide G.O.Rt.No.206, Transport Roads and Buildings (Vig.III.2) Department, dated 26.02.2010, taking a decision to appoint an inquiring authority to continue the departmental proceedings against the other six individuals. 5. Thereafter, the Transport Commissioner, Andhra Pradesh, vide letter No.5305/V4/2008, dated 18.03.2010, made a request to the State Government to reconsider the issue in detail and to include the respondents herein also in the enquiry proceedings on the ground that in the event of the respondents herein being let off, the same would set a bad precedent. 5. Thereafter, the Transport Commissioner, Andhra Pradesh, vide letter No.5305/V4/2008, dated 18.03.2010, made a request to the State Government to reconsider the issue in detail and to include the respondents herein also in the enquiry proceedings on the ground that in the event of the respondents herein being let off, the same would set a bad precedent. On the basis of the said letter, the State Government, by wax of Memo bearing No.13744/Vig.III/2/2008-5, dated 20.10.2010, called upon the respondents herein/applicants to show cause as to why the orders issued earlier, vide G.O.Rt.No.205, Transport Roads and Buildings (Vig.III.2) Department dated 26.02.2010 should not be reviewed under Rule 40 of the Andhra Pradesh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1991 (for short, ‘the Rules’). The said show cause notice dated 20.10.2010 was challenged by the respondents herein before the Tribunal by way of filing O.A.Nos.2776 of 2011 and 2768 of 2011 respectively. The Tribunal by way of orders under challenge in the present Writ Petitions allowed the said Original Applications and had set aside the impugned Memorandum dated 20.10.2010 issued by the State Government. 6. Heard the learned Government Pleader for Services, appearing for the petitioners, and Sri P.Gangaiah Naidu, learned senior counsel, representing Sri K.Ramalingeswara Rao, learned counsel for, the respondents herein/applicants, apart from perusing the material available before the Court. 7. It is contended by the learned Government Pleader that the orders impugned in the present Writ Petitions are highly erroneous and contrary to law. In elaboration, it is further contended that the Tribunal grossly erred in setting aside the show cause notices and should have asked the respondents/applicants to file explanations to the show cause notices. It is further contended that having regard to the gravity of the charges levelled against the respondents herein/applicants, the State Government is perfectly justified in issuing the impugned show cause notices on the basis of the letter addressed by the Transport Commissioner/Head of the Department on 18.03.2010. It is further contended by the learned Government Pleader that the Tribunal grossly erred in not going into the merits-of the matter and the reason assigned by the Tribunal that the Government dropped further action against the other six delinquent officers by way of G.O.Rt.No.214 dated 22.02.2013 is factually incorrect. It is further contended by the learned Government Pleader that the Tribunal grossly erred in not going into the merits-of the matter and the reason assigned by the Tribunal that the Government dropped further action against the other six delinquent officers by way of G.O.Rt.No.214 dated 22.02.2013 is factually incorrect. It is further submitted by the learned Government Pleader that against one of the officers, i.e., Assistant Motor Vehicle Inspector, the punishment of withholding of two annual increments with cumulative effect was inflicted. It is also the contention of the learned Government Pleader that the impugned order squarely falls under Rules 40 and 41 of the Rules. 8. On the contrary, it is contended by the learned senior counsel, Sri P.Gangaiah Naidu that having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is perfectly. justified in setting aside the impugned show cause notice. It is the further submission of the learned senior counsel that in the absence of necessary ingredients, the State Government has no jurisdiction to press into service the Rules 40 and 41 of the Rules, and the present Writ Petitions are liable to be dismissed. It is also the submission of the learned senior counsel that earlier, the State Government, after thoroughly examining the explanations/representations submitted by the respondents herein, issued G.O.Rt.No.205, Transport Roads and Buildings (Vig.III.2) Department, dated 26.02.2010, dropping further action against, the respondents with a warning to be more careful in future and having regard to the same, there cannot be any justification for invoking the provisions of the C.C.A. Rules for the purpose of undertaking review of the said orders. In support of his submissions and contentions, the learned senior counsel placed reliance on the judgments of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Union of India v. Vicco Laboratories (2007) 13 SCC 270 and M/s. Seimens Limited v. State of Maharashtra (2006) 12 SCC 33 . 9. In the above background, now the issues that emerge for consideration of this Court are: (1) Whether the impugned memo dated 20. 10.2010, asking the applicants/respondents herein to show cause as to why the orders issued earlier, dropping the charges should not be reviewed, can be sustained in the eye of law? (2) Whether the orders passed by the Tribunal which are impugned in the present Writ Petitions warrant any interference of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India? 10. (2) Whether the orders passed by the Tribunal which are impugned in the present Writ Petitions warrant any interference of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India? 10. There is absolutely no controversy with regard to the reality that earlier in response to the charge memos issued in the month of October, 20 10, the respondents herein submitted their explanations. It is also not in controversy that after receipt of the said explanations/representations, the State Government, vide G.O.Rt.No.205, Transport Roads and Buildings (Vig.III.2)-Department, dated 26.02.2010, dropped further action against the respondents herein, however, with a warning to be more careful in future. Obviously, the very basis for initiating the impugned action against the respondents herein is the letter No.5305/V4/2008 dated 18.03.2010 of the State Transport Commissioner. A copy of the said letter is filed along with the Writ Petitions as material paper. A perusal of the said letter reveals that the Transport Commissioner expressed the opinion that the allegations were serious in nature and to be probed in detail and, in the event of letting off the respondents/applicants, the same would set a bad precedent. While saying so, the Transport Commissioner requested the Government to reconsider the issue in detail for including the respondents/applicants also in the common proceedings. It is also required to be noted that as against the other six individuals, disciplinary proceedings went on and out of the six individuals, five employees were exonerated and as against one Sri K.Rambabu, an Assistant Motor Vehicles Inspector, punishment of stoppage of two annual grade increments with cumulative effect was inflicted, vide G.O.Rt.No.243, Transport Roads and Buildings (Vig.Tr.(I) Department, dated 15.05.2015. 11. The issue in the present Writ Petitions evidently revolves round Rule 41 of the Andhra Pradesh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1991. By way of the impugned Memo, in fact, the State Government asked the respondents herein to show cause as to why the orders passed earlier, vide G.O.Rt.No.205, Transport Roads and Buildings (Vig.III.2) Department, dated 26.02.2010, should not be reviewed. In the considered opinion of this Court, though there is an attempt made by the learned Government Pleader to bring the impugned action within Rule 40, this Court finds no force in the said submission as, in the absence of any order passed by the subordinate authority, the action as provided under Rule 40 by way of revision is not permissible. Therefore, now the entire issue centres round Rule 41. In order to consider the issues in these Writ Petitions, it would be appropriate to refer to Rule 41 of the Rules, which reads as follows: “Rule 41- The Government may exercise the power to review any order passed under these rules only on the reference made by the Head of the Department when any new material or evidence which could not be produced or was not available at the time of passing the order under review and which has the effect of changing the nature of the case, has come, or has been brought, to its notice: Provided that no order imposing or enhancing any penalty shall be made by the Government unless the Government servant concerned has been given reasonable opportunity of making a representation against the penalty proposed or where it is proposed to impose any of the major penalties specified in Rule 9 or to enhance the minor penalty imposed by the order sought to be reviewed to any of the major penalties and if an inquiry under Rule 20 has not already been held in the case, no such penalty shall be imposed except after inquiring in the manner laid down in Rule 20, subject to the provisions of Rule 25 and except after consultation with the Commission where such consultation is necessary. Provided further that the Government shall exercise the power of review within a period of three years.” 12. It is very much evident from-a reading of the above provision of law that the condition precedent for pressing into service the said provision of law is the availability and existence of new material which could not be produced or was not available at the time of passing order. In the instant case, the very basis for the impugned action is a letter bearing No.5305/V4/2008, dated 18.03.2010 addressed by the Transport Commissioner to the State Government. But the said letter does not disclose the discovery of any new material or availability of new material. On the other hand, he expressed the opinion that dropping of the proceedings would set a bad precedent. In the considered opinion of this Court and having regard to the mandatory requirement of Rule 41 of the Rules, the impugned action initiated by way of issuing the show cause notice cannot be sustained in the eye of law. On the other hand, he expressed the opinion that dropping of the proceedings would set a bad precedent. In the considered opinion of this Court and having regard to the mandatory requirement of Rule 41 of the Rules, the impugned action initiated by way of issuing the show cause notice cannot be sustained in the eye of law. In this context, it would be appropriate to refer to the law laid down in the decisions of the Hon’ble Apex Court cited by the learned senior counsel. (a) In Vicco Laboratories case (1 supra), it is held thus: (para 26) “Normally, the writ court should not interfere at the stage of issuance of show cause notice by the authorities. In such a case, the parties get ample opportunity to put forth their contentions before the concerned authorities and to satisfy the concerned authorities about the absence of case for proceeding against the person against whom the show cause notices have been issued. Abstinence from interference at the stage of issuance of show cause notice in order to relegate the parties to the proceedings before the concerned authorities is the normal rule. However, the said rule is not without exceptions. Where a Show Cause notice is issued either without jurisdiction or in an abuse of process of law, certainly in that case, the writ court would not hesitate to interfere even at the stage of issuance of show cause notice. The interference at the show cause notice stage should be rare and not in a routine manner, Mere assertion by the writ petitioner that notice was without jurisdiction and/or abuse of process of law would not suffice. It should be prima facie established to be so. Where factual adjudication would be necessary, interference is ruled out.” (b) In Seimens Limited case (2 supra), it is held thus: (para 10) “Although ordinarily a writ court may not exercise its discretionary jurisdiction in entertaining a writ petition questioning a notice to show cause unless the same inter alia appears to have been without jurisdiction as has been held by this Court in some decisions including State of Uttar Pradesh v. Brahm Daft Sharma and another. AIR 1987 SC 943 , Special Director and another v. Mohd. Ghulam Ghouse and another, (2004) 3 SCC 440 and Union of India and anotherv. AIR 1987 SC 943 , Special Director and another v. Mohd. Ghulam Ghouse and another, (2004) 3 SCC 440 and Union of India and anotherv. Kunisetty Satyanarqyana, 2006 (12) SCALE 262 ], but the question herein has to be considered from a different angle, viz., when a notice is issued with pre-meditation, a writ petition would be maintainable. In such an event, even if the courts directs the statutory authority to hear the matter afresh, ordinarily such hearing would not yield any fruitful purpose [See K.J. Shephard and others v. Union of India and others (1987) 4 SCC 431 : AIR 1988 SC 686 ]. It is evident in the instant case that the respondent has clearly made up its mind. It explicitly said so both in the, counter affidavit as also in its purported show cause.” Having regard to the law laid down in the above referred judgments, the contention of the learned Government Pleader that since the notice impugned is only a show cause notice, Writ Petition cannot be maintained, in the considered opinion of this Court, cannot be sustained as this Court finds that the very action of issuing show cause notice under Rule 41 of the Rules, is totally one without jurisdiction. 13. It is also significant to note that the Tribunal passed the orders under challenge in these two Writ Petitions, in the month of January, 2014 and October, 2013, respectively. But these Writ Petitions came to be filed in the month of December, 2017. Though an effort is made to justify the delay in the affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petitions, the said reasons, by any stretch of imagination, cannot be the valid reasons for sustaining the said plea. Therefore, on the ground of laches also, the present Writ Petitions are liable to be dismissed. 14. In view of the above reasons, this Court has absolutely no scintilla of hesitation to hold that the Memo impugned in the Original Applications cannot be sustained in the eye of law and the orders passed by the Tribunal do not warrant any interference of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 15. Accordingly, Writ Petitions are dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, shall stand closed.