ORDER : In the present Writ Petition, challenge is to the order dated 08.03.2017, passed by the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal (herein after called the Tribunal) in O.A.No.9319 of 2013. 2. Petitioner herein filed the said Original Application, questioning G.O.Ms.Nos.1118, (Revenue Vig.IV.3) Department, dated 02.09.2010, imposing punishment of 10% cut in pension permanently. The Commissioner of Endowments-2nd respondent herein, vide R.C.No. VI/14693/98, dated 28.06.1999, issued a charge memo framing the following charges against the petitioner. “Charge No.1: That the receipts and charges from 28.01.1998 to 26.02.1998 are not tallied and discrepancy of excess debit of Rs.1220- 30 as against the actual receipts. The excess amount debited (Rs.1220-30) needs recovery from the Executive Officer and credited to temple account immediately. Charge No.2: That he directly utilised Mahasivarathri festival collections to a tune of Rs.1,51,600/- from 24.02.1998 to 26.02.1998 without remitting them in bank. Charge No.3: That he debited abnormal expenditure to a tune of Rs.1,51,600/- when compared to previous expenditure for conducting Mahasivarathri Festival had held from 24.02.1998 to 26.02.1998 at Polathala Village without obtaining sanction of budget estimate or prior permission of the competent authority. The expenditure without sanction is not valid and to be recovered from the Executive Officer and credit to the temple account. Charge No.4: That he debited false and suspicious expenditure of Rs.26,000/- towards printing charges of customary ticket books without either approval of quotations of prior permission of the competent authority when there are sufficient stock of old ticket books available in his office as detailed below. (a) Darshanam ticket books No.of books No.of tickets (each book contains 500 leafs) 90 35,000 (b) Talaneelalu ticket books (each book contains 500 leafs) 19 9,000 Total 109 45,500 Charge No.5: That he miserably failed to produce the stock of new ticket books printed along with money valued from register maintained in Assistant Commissioner’s officer, Cuddapah for affixing them official seal before use in Mahasivarathri festival 1998 at Polathala Village. He suppressed the facts put the office in darkness; which gives room from suspicious of his bonafide administration dealing with financial matter. Charge No.6: That he debited abnormal expenditure of Rs.37,214-00 to poor feeding during Mahasivarathri Festival days from 24-02-98 to 26-02-98 polathala. The amount spent under this head appears to be an exaggerated not reasonable without prior sanction. The unauthorized fictious expenditure needs recovery from the Executive Officer immediately. Charge No.6: That he debited abnormal expenditure of Rs.37,214-00 to poor feeding during Mahasivarathri Festival days from 24-02-98 to 26-02-98 polathala. The amount spent under this head appears to be an exaggerated not reasonable without prior sanction. The unauthorized fictious expenditure needs recovery from the Executive Officer immediately. Charge No.7: That he failed to produce the Stock Register of provisions purchased for poor feeding attested by the Chief festival officer of Mahasivaratri Festival held from 24-02-1998 to 26-02-1998. In absence of stock entry particulars for the expenditure of Rs.37,214/- is debited under this head is objectionable and needs recovery. Charge No.8: That he wilfully failed to pay statutory payment of departmental contribution and audit fees to a tune due from the following temple though he is a paid servant. Year Contribution Audit fees (1) Sri Veerabhadra Swamy Temple 96-97 34,153-00 7319-00 (2) Sri Malleswara Swamy Temple (Polathala Village) 96-97 46,014-00 9860-00 Charge No.9: That he colluded with self styled poojari of Sri Akka Devathalu which is sub-Diety to Sri Malleswara Swamy Temple and allowed for sale of their own tickets printed opening separate counter during Mahasivarathri festival 1998 in the disguise of conditional orders obtained in W.P.No.3930 of 1998 on the file of High Court, Hyderabad by Ayyavaru when there is no such usage and custom prevailing never before in the temple. The loss of Revenue sustained to temple to a tune of Rs.50,000/- to 60,000/- is held responsible by the Executive Officer for his inaction in time on the issue. Charge No.10: That he wilfully suppressed and failed to report the facts to higher authority about the unlawful activities made by the poojari of Akka Devathalu and the situation happened during festival days. Charge No.11:That he failed to take immediate action against the persons responsible for causing damages and dismantled “Q” system arranged for smooth movement of devotees for easy darshanam of Sri Akka Devathalu during Mahasivaratri festival, 1998. As such the Executive Officer is held responsible for cost of damages caused to “Q” line. Charge No.12: That he wilfully failed to open the permanent Hundi soon after Mahasivarathri Festival (i.e., on 26.02.1998) is over and left to its fate without making proper arrangements for safe custody of the Hundi though the temple is situated in thick forest area. As such the Executive Officer is held responsible for cost of damages caused to “Q” line. Charge No.12: That he wilfully failed to open the permanent Hundi soon after Mahasivarathri Festival (i.e., on 26.02.1998) is over and left to its fate without making proper arrangements for safe custody of the Hundi though the temple is situated in thick forest area. He is held responsible for occurring theft of Hundi and causing loss of money to a tune of Rs.30 to 40 thousands which needs to initiate disciplinary action against the Executive Officer. Charge No.13: That he failed to take immediate action on the theft of Hundi occurred on 06.03.1998 at Polathala temple, until the Assistant Commissioner, Endowments Department, Cuddapah issued telegraphic directions to move on the subject. But he leasurely after lapse of 7 days i.e., on 13.03.1998 said to have been made complaint before the Station House Officer, Pendlimarri for its investigation. He did not felt any sense of responsibility to safeguard even financial sources of Hundi for which there is no excuse in this subject. Charge No.14: That he is not evincing any interest to contest the W.P.No.3930 of 1998 on the file of High Court, A.P, Hyderabad filed by Ayyavaru of Sri Akkadevathalu and to get prepared counter affidavit in the matter so far even impleading as party in the case. Charge No.15: That he debited false and abnormal expenditure of Rs.7,500/- towards Katha Kalakshepams during Mahasivaratri festival for one day programme. The expenditure incurred under this head is doubtful and appears to be fictious and needs recovery from the Executive Officer. Charge No.16: That he wilfully failed to attend review meeting on 21.03.1998 at Cuddapah Assistant Commissioner’s Office held by Regional Joint Commissioner, Multi Zone-II, Tirupathi on collection work and to discuss on administration of temples, though personally instructed by the Assistant commissioner, Endowments Department, Cuddapah.” 3. In response to the said charge memo and the charges contained therein, petitioner herein submitted his explanation on 12.02.2000. The Enquiry Officer, appointed by the disciplinary authority, conducted enquiry and submitted a report on 09.02.2008. According to the said report dated 09.02.2008, charges 1, 2, 4, 6, 7, 12, 13 and 15 stood proved, but the rest stood unproved. Petitioner herein retired from service on 28.02.2005. The Enquiry Officer, appointed by the disciplinary authority, conducted enquiry and submitted a report on 09.02.2008. According to the said report dated 09.02.2008, charges 1, 2, 4, 6, 7, 12, 13 and 15 stood proved, but the rest stood unproved. Petitioner herein retired from service on 28.02.2005. Vide memo No.47690 (Vig-IV-3/2009-1), dated 02.03.2010, enclosing a copy of the report of the enquiry officer, the State Government issued a show-cause notice, calling upon the petitioner to show cause as to why punishment of 30% cut in pensionary benefits should not be imposed. 4. In response to the said show-cause notice, petitioner herein submitted his explanation on 19.03.2010. Thereafter, vide G.O.Ms.Nos.1118, (Revenue Vig.IV.3) Department, dated 02.09.2010, the State Government, in exercise of the powers conferred under Rule 9 of the Andhra Pradesh Revised Pension Rules, 1980, imposed punishment of 10% cut in pension permanently against the petitioner. 5. The Petitioner herein, by invoking Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985, filed O.A.No.9319 of 2013, before the Tribunal. Vide impugned order dated 08.03.2017, the Tribunal dismissed the said Original Application. Validity of the said order dated 08.03.2017, is under challenge in the present Writ Petition. 6. Heard Sri Ravi Kondaveeti, learned counsel for the petitioner and Smt.Sumathi, learned Government Pleader for Services-II, for the respondents, apart from perusing the material available on record. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the impugned order of the Tribunal, confirming the order of punishment, passed by the State Government is highly erroneous, contrary to law and opposed to the very spirit and the object of the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Civil Services (Classification Control and Appeal Rules), 1991 (for short ‘the Rules’). It is further submitted that the action of the respondent authorities is violative of Rules 20(3)(b), 20(7)(iii) and 20(10)(c) and Rules 20(5) and (9) of the Rules. It is also the submission of the learned counsel that no witnesses were examined, nor any documents were filed to prove the charges and no presenting officer was appointed. It is further argued that though the petitioner herein, in the explanation dated 19.03.2010, specifically requested the respondents to afford personal hearing to him, no such opportunity was given and the same is contrary to Rule 21 of the Rules. It is further argued that though the petitioner herein, in the explanation dated 19.03.2010, specifically requested the respondents to afford personal hearing to him, no such opportunity was given and the same is contrary to Rule 21 of the Rules. In support of his submissions and contentions, learned counsel for the petitioner places reliance on the judgments reported in (2008) 3 SCC 484 , (2010) 2 SCC 772 and 2016 (1) ALT 469 . 8. On the other hand, learned Government Pleader contends that there is no error nor there exists any procedural infirmity in the impugned order and in the absence of the same, the questioned order is not amenable for any judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It is also the submission of the learned Government Pleader that the alleged infirmity, as pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner, is not fatal and the same does not vitiate the entire disciplinary proceedings, having regard to the nature of the charges levelled against the petitioner. It is also the submission of the learned Government Pleader that though initially 30% cut was proposed, the State Government by taking lenient view, decreased the same to 10%, as such the order passed by the State Government, inflicting the punishment cannot be faulted. 9. In the above background, now the issues that arise for consideration and adjudication by this Court are as follows: “i) whether the order passed by the Tribunal, confirming the order of punishment passed by the State Government, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, is sustainable and tenable? ii) whether the impugned order warrants any interference of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India?” 10. In order to resolve the issues in the present Writ Petition, reference to the relevant provisions of law is necessary and essential. Rule 20 of the Rules deals with the procedure for imposing major penalties. 11. ii) whether the impugned order warrants any interference of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India?” 10. In order to resolve the issues in the present Writ Petition, reference to the relevant provisions of law is necessary and essential. Rule 20 of the Rules deals with the procedure for imposing major penalties. 11. According to Rule 20(3), when there is a proposal to hold an enquiry against the Government servants under Rules 20 and 21, the disciplinary authority or the cadre controlling authority who is not designated as disciplinary authority and who is subordinate to the appointing authority can draw up or cause to be drawn up, the substance of the imputations of misconduct or misbehaviour into definite and distinct Articles of Charge and the statement of the imputations or misconduct or misbehaviour in support of each of charge, which shall necessarily contain a statement of all relevant facts including any admission or confession made by the Government servant and a list of documents by which, and a list of witnesses by whom, the Articles of Charge are proposed to be sustained. 12. In the instant case, the respondent authorities admittedly did not adhere to the said mandatory requirement of law i.e., furnishing a list of witnesses. The respondent authorities while holding the enquiry also failed to adhere to Rule 20(7)(iii) of the Rules, which mandates the disciplinary authority to forward to the enquiring authority, the copies of statements of witnesses referred to in sub-Rule (3) and the said contingency infact did not arise as no witnesses were examined. Rule 20(10)(c) deals with the examination of witnesses and cross examination of the same by the Government servants. Rule 20(9) also mandates appointment of presenting officer. 13. In the instant case, charges framed against the petitioner on the face of them appear to be grave in nature. Admittedly, no witnesses were examined nor any documents were filed to prove the charges. When a major penalty is proposed, it is obligatory and incumbent on the part of the authorities to scrupulously adhere to all the mandatory requirements of law. 14. It is very much evident from a reading of the above referred relevant rules, that the examination of witnesses and filing of documents cannot be dispensed with. In the present case, simply on the basis of the charge memo and the explanation submitted by the petitioner punishment was awarded. 14. It is very much evident from a reading of the above referred relevant rules, that the examination of witnesses and filing of documents cannot be dispensed with. In the present case, simply on the basis of the charge memo and the explanation submitted by the petitioner punishment was awarded. Admittedly no presenting officer was appointed. 15. It is also significant to note that in response to the show cause notice dated 02.03.2010, issued by the State Government, proposing 30% cut in pension, petitioner herein submitted an elaborate explanation on 19.03.2010. It is also pertinent to note that apart from answering various charges, the petitioner herein made a request to afford opportunity of hearing. Admittedly, no such opportunity was afforded to the petitioner herein, prior to issuing the impugned G.O.Ms.Nos.1118, (Revenue Vig.IV.3) Department, dated 02.09.2010. Coming to the order impugned in the Original Application, i.e., the order of punishment issued vide G.O.Ms.Nos.1118, (Revenue Vig.IV.3) Department, dated 02.09.2010, a perusal of the said order of punishment shows that except referring to various dates in a chronological manner, the 1st respondent-State Government did not make any endeavour to consider the contents of the explanation dated 19.03.2010. Having called for the explanation by way of a show-cause notice dated 02.03.2010, and having acknowledged the explanation offered by the petitioner, this Court does not find any justification on the part of the 1st respondent in not referring to the contents of the explanation. The said exercise undertaken by the 1st respondent, cannot be approved by this Court. All these aspects missed the attention of the Tribunal, while dealing with the relevant mandatory requirements of law. 16. In this context, it may be appropriate to refer to the judgment cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner in the case of Moni Shankar vs. Union of India and another, (2008) 3 SCC 484 , the Hon’ble Apex Court at para Nos.29 and 30, held as under: “29. The cumulative effect of the illegalities/irregularities was required to be taken into consideration to judge as to whether the departmental proceeding stood vitiated or not. 30. For the aforementioned purpose, the manner in which the enquiry proceeding was conducted was required to be taken into consideration by the High Court. The cumulative effect of the illegalities/irregularities was required to be taken into consideration to judge as to whether the departmental proceeding stood vitiated or not. 30. For the aforementioned purpose, the manner in which the enquiry proceeding was conducted was required to be taken into consideration by the High Court. The trap was not conducted in terms of the Manual; the enquiry officer acted as a prosecutor and not as an independent quasi judicial authority; he did not comply with Rule 9(21) of the Rules, evidently, therefore, it was not a case where the order of the Tribunal warranted interference at the hands of the High Court.” 17. In the case of State of Uttar Pradesh and others vs. Saroj Kumar Sinha, (2010) 2 SCC 772 , the Hon’ble Apex Court at para Nos.28 to 30, held as under: “28. An inquiry officer acting in a quasi-judicial authority is in the position of an independent adjudicator. He is not supposed to be a representative of the department/disciplinary authority/Government, even in the function is to examine the evidence presented by the Department, even in the absence of the delinquent official to see as to whether the unrebutted evidence is sufficient to hold that the charges are proved. In the present case the aforesaid procedure has not been observed. Since no oral evidence has been examined the documents have not been proved, and could not have been taken into consideration to conclude that the charges have been proved against the respondents. 29. Apart from the above, by virtue of Article 311(2) of the Constitution of India the departmental enquiry had to be conducted in accordance with the rules of natural justice. It is a basic requirement of the rules of natural justice that an employee be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard in any proceedings which may culminate in punishment being imposed on the employee. 30. When a departmental enquiry is conducted against the government servant it cannot be treated as a casual exercise. The enquiry proceedings also cannot be conducted with a closed mind. The inquiry officer has to be wholly unbiased. The rules of natural justice are required to be observed to ensure not only that justice is done but is manifestly seen to be done. The enquiry proceedings also cannot be conducted with a closed mind. The inquiry officer has to be wholly unbiased. The rules of natural justice are required to be observed to ensure not only that justice is done but is manifestly seen to be done. The object of rules of natural justice is to ensure that a government servant is treated fairly in proceedings which may culminate in imposition of punishment including dismissal/removal from service.” 18. In the case of S.Zabeda Parveen vs. A.P.Women’s Cooperative Finance Corporation Hyderabad and another, 2016 (1) ALT 469 , the High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad for the State of Telangana and the State of Andhra Pradesh at para 41, held as under: “41. Tested on the anvil of the law laid down by the Courts on the fair procedure to be followed in the enquiry, one would have no qualm of conscience to hold that every step taken by the enquiry officer in the present case is blatantly contrary to the settled legal principles. The enquiry officer has reduced the enquiry to a mockery. He has acted both as prosecutor and judge, which is forbidden by law. He has not insisted on the DA to appoint a presenting officer. He has not called upon the DA to produce evidence from its side. He has not fixed dates of enquiry for recording evidence. Not only that he has recorded the statements of four witnesses behind the back of the petitioner, but also he has not supplied those statements to the petitioner, much less summoning the persons who gave those statements for being crossexamined by the petitioner. Therefore, it would be a travesty of truth for anyone to claim that an enquiry in law was conducted by the enquiry officer. Thus I have no hesitation to hold that the purported enquiry is highly farcical and nothing but a facade.” 19. In view of the above reasons, and the law laid down in the above mentioned judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and the composite High Court of Andhra Pradesh, this Court has absolutely no hesitation to arrive at a conclusion that the order passed by the Tribunal confirming the order of the punishment is neither sustainable nor tenable in the eye of law. 20. 20. Therefore, the Writ Petition is allowed and consequently O.A.No.9319 of 2013, on the file of the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal is allowed and order passed by the State Government vide G.O.Ms.Nos.1118, (Revenue Vig.IV.3) Department, dated 02.09.2010 is set aside. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous Petitions pending, if any, in this Writ Petition shall stand closed.