JUDGMENT Dr. K. Manmadha Rao, J. - This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking the following relief: '.....to issue a Writ, Order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in issuing G.O.Ms. No. 93, dated 09.05.2016 by the 1st respondent in deducting of 5% of pensionary benefits as penalty is illegal, arbitrary to the provisions of the Revised Pension Rules and also violative of principles of natural justice and to treat the period of suspension between 03.04.2009 to 28.09.2010 as on duty in spite of the enquiry officers report that the charges were not provided and consequently direct the respondents to refund the amount deducted as per G.O.Ms. No. 93, dated 09.05.2016 and pass such other orders.' 2. Heard Ms. P. Vijaya Kumari, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner and learned the Government Pleader, Services-II for the respondents 3. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was working as Superintendent in Government Children's Welfare Department at Eluru. The petitioner was placed under suspension vide proceedings No. EA1/33/2009-1, dated 02.04.2009 on the ground that he committed certain irregularities, consequently disciplinary proceedings vide Charge Memo EA1/33/2009-1, dated 25.05.2009 were initiated calling for explanation, for which the petitioner submitted explanation. Without considering the explanation the enquiry report submitted that all the charges were proved against the petitioner and imposing 100% cut in the pension and gratuity. Assailing the same the petitioner filed O.A. No. 6752 of 2011 before the A.P. Administrative Tribunal and the learned Tribunal directed the respondents to conduct further enquiry from the stage of trial by its order dated 11.03.2014. Pursuant to the said order the an enquiry was initiated, after considering the evidence of the petitioner has submitted a report recommending the Government to exonerate the petitioner from all the charges. Inspite of recommendations in the enquiry report, the respondent imposed punishment, withholding 5% cut in the petitioner's pension for five years, besides treating the suspension period from 03.04.2009 to 28.09.2010 as not on duty for the reason that the petitioner did not maintain stock properly and caused financial loss to the Government. Therefore the inaction of the respondents is questioned in this writ petition. 4. Therefore the inaction of the respondents is questioned in this writ petition. 4. Per contra, the 1st respondent filed counter denying all material averments made in the writ affidavit and mainly contended that the petitioner was suspended from service on 03.04.2009, but the petitioner never cooperated with the Enquiry for early conclusion of the disciplinary action. As per directions of the learned Tribunal, the petitioner was reinstated into service vide proceedings dated 28.09.2010 and the petitioner was permitted to retire from service on attaining the age of superannuation on the A.N. of 30.09.2010 without prejudice to the disciplinary proceedings pending or arise in future. The petitioner was paid Provisional Pension till Disciplinary Case is finalized and the 3rd respondent sanctioned Revised Pension along with other Pensionary Benefits. The petitioner submitted Review Petition dated 09.06.2016 to the 1st respondent and the same was rejected. Since Government not convinced with the report of the Second Enquiry Officer, has issued Show-Cause Notice considering his explanation and after thorough examination has issued G.O.Rt. No. 93, dated 09.05.2016 imposing the punishment of 5% cut in pension for a period of 5 years besides treating the suspension period from 03.04.2009 to 28.09.2010 as 'Not on Duty' under FR 54 B against the petitioner, as the charges are severe in nature involving misappropriation, endangering and neglecting children, causing loss to Government and moral turpitude. Therefore the petitioner is not entitled to claim 5% of the pension and requested to dismiss the writ petition. 5. During hearing learned Government Pleader for the respondents placed reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in 'High Court of Judicature at Bombay, through its Registrar Vs. Shashikant S. Patil and Another (2000)1 SCC 416 ' wherein it was held as follows: '6. The Division Bench of the High Court has propounded a legal proposition as follows: 'It is an established principle in disciplinary jurisprudence that when the disciplinary authority differs from the findings of the enquiry officer, it has to discuss the entire case threadbare and establish that each finding of the enquiry officer was totally improbable that in the light of the materials the only conclusion that can be arrived at by an ordinary prudent men, is the conclusion arrived at by the disciplinary authority'. ...... 20. ...... 20. The legal position on that score has been stated by this Court in A.N. D'Silva V. Union of India AIR 1962 SC 1130 : 1962 Supp (1) SCR 968 that neither the findings of the enquiry officer nor his recommendations are binding on the punishing authority. The aforesaid position was settled by a Constitution Bench of this Court way back in 1963 (Union of India V.H.C. Goel AIR 1964 SC 364 : (1964) 4 SCR 718 ) The bench held that 'the Government may agree with the report or may differ, either wholly or partially, from the conclusions recorded in the report'. Their Lordships laid down the following principle: 'If the report makes findings in favour of the public servant and the Government disagrees with the said findings and holds that the charges framed against the public servant are prima facie proved, the Government should decide provisionally what punishment should be imposed on the public servant and proceed to issue a second notice against him in that behalf'. Further the learned Government Pleader for respondents placed on record the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in 'Union of India and Others Vs. P. Gunasekaran ' 2014 SC 961: AIR 2015 SC 545 wherein it was held as follows: '18. The disciplinary authority, on scanning the inquiry report and having accepted it, after discussing the available and admissible evidence on the charge, and the Central Administrative Tribunal having endorsed the view of the disciplinary authority, it was not at all open to the High Court to re-appreciate the evidence in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India. 19. Equally, it was not open to the High Court, in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, to go into the proportionality of punishment so long as the punishment does not shock the conscience of the court. In the instant case, the disciplinary authority has come to the conclusion that the respondent lacked integrity. No doubt, there are no measurable standards as to what is integrity in service jurisprudence but certainly there are indicators for such assessment. ......' 6. It is undisputed fact that the Second Enquiry Officer after considering the evidence adduced by the petitioner submitted his report by recommending the Government to exonerate the petitioner from all the charges. No doubt, there are no measurable standards as to what is integrity in service jurisprudence but certainly there are indicators for such assessment. ......' 6. It is undisputed fact that the Second Enquiry Officer after considering the evidence adduced by the petitioner submitted his report by recommending the Government to exonerate the petitioner from all the charges. It is mentioned at Para 17 of the Counter-affidavit that the Government, not convinced with the Report of the Second Enquiry Officer, has issued Show Cause Notice, taken his explanation and after thorough examination of the case, has issued G.O.Rt. No. 93, dated 09.05.2016 imposing the punishment of 5% cut in pension for a period of 5 years besides treating the suspension period from 03.04.2009 to 28.09.2010 as 'Not on Duty' under FR 54 B against the petitioner, which is untenable. The Principal Secretary to Government having not considered the enquiry report and simply said they have not convinced and passed an order in G.O.Rt. No. 93, dated 09.05.2016. In view of the same, the very purpose of initiating second enquiry will be defeated in the light of the order passed by the learned Tribunal in O.A. No. 6752 of 2011 with V.M.A. No. 845 of 2013, dated 11.03.2014, wherein at Point No. (ii) mentioned as follows: '9. For the reasons stated under Point No. (i), the O.A. is allowed setting aside G.O.Ms. No. 33, Department for Women, Children, Disabled & Senior Citizens (JJ) Department, dt. 15.7.2011. The matter is remitted back to the Government with a direction to remand the matter back to the Enquiry Officer for further enquiry from the stage of defense evidence and then report. The enquiry officer should summon the witnesses cited by the applicant and examine them as defense witnesses. He should also give opportunity to the applicant to adduce his other evidence, if any. Basing upon the said report, it would be open for the Government to take appropriate action in accordance with Rules. The applicant shall be paid provisional pension from the date of his retirement till the date of passing of final orders, so as to enable him to effectively particulate in the enquiry. The further enquiry, including passing of final orders thereon, shall be completed within a period of six months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. VMA stand dismissed.' 7. The further enquiry, including passing of final orders thereon, shall be completed within a period of six months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. VMA stand dismissed.' 7. The learned Tribunal observed that there was no proper enquiry conducted by the Enquiry Officer and hence the matter is remitted back to the Government with the direction as mentioned above and the Second Enquiry Officer made recommendation to the Government to exonerate the petitioner from all charges. So far the Disciplinary Authority did not consider same and simply passed blanket order that the Government not convinced with the Report of the Second Enquiry Officer and erroneously passed the punishment order holding 5% of pension of the petitioner for untold reasons, which is illegal and arbitrary. The decisions cited supra are not applicable to the facts of the case, since the Enquiry Report speaks truth and it is binding on both the parties. Therefore the decisions referred above have no relevance for the present. 8. However, this Court finds that the deduction of 5% of the pensionary benefits of the petitioner is unreasonable on some trifle issues like case of the petitioner is highly illegal and arbitrary and the respondents failed to give proper reasoning involved in the issue or failed to pass appropriate order as per direction of the learned Tribunal and in view of lacunae on the part of the respondents, the petitioner cannot be penalized. Hence it is a fit case to issue a writ of mandamus in favour of the petitioner. 9. Accordingly the Writ Petition is allowed while directing the respondents to pay what are the amounts deducted as per G.O.Ms. No. 93, dated 09.05.2016 from the pension of the petitioner, within a period of four (04) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall also stand closed.