ORDER : This petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for 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 3rd respondent in issuing the impugned Proceedings vide Progs No A1/UVR/2013 dt 08 03 2022 imposing punishment of recovery of Rs 8 01 999 00 in addition to imposing punishment of stoppage of 3 increments with cumulative effect as illegal arbitrary discriminatory and selective punishment and consequently set aside the same and pass such other order or orders…….” 2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner worked as Mandal Engineering Officer, Mandal Parishad, Seethanagaram, on deputation basis in Vizianagaram district, executed Food for Work Programme in the year 1998 to 2000, which were relating to construction of Roads and Buildings and they were completed in the year 2000 itself. Basing on a complaint, against the works executed by the eptitoenr and his superiors the then Executive Engineer, Panchyat Raj, Vigilance and Quality Control, Visakhapatnam, made enquiry and submitted a report on 02.03.2008 to the Chief Engineer, Vigilance and Quality Control by forming two teams to certify the work already finished in the year 2. As per the said report, it was clearly mentioned that out of 35 works, 13 works are earthen formation and it is not possible to verify them after lapse of nearly 5 years. The exact location of the work, where the work was executed, was not mentioned in the M.Books. Earth works cannot be verified after such length of time as it was executed 5 years back. Minimum percentage of verification was not done by the Deputy Executive Engineer and has not appended his initial for the same work. Further, the Deputy Executive Engineer failed to inform higher authorities immediately after noticing tampering by adding of items by Section Officer. The ENC submitted a report to the Government on 28.5.2012 enhancing the amount to be recovered, without any valid reasons and without any proper inspection, informed that tampering was done by U.Yesuratnam i.e., the petitioner alone, MEO, Balajipeta in M.Books. The misappropriation amount comes to Rs.5,06,301/-, but whereas the amount mentioned by the Quality Control Department comes to Rs.1,50,000/-. The ENC submitted a report to the Government on 28.5.2012 enhancing the amount to be recovered, without any valid reasons and without any proper inspection, informed that tampering was done by U.Yesuratnam i.e., the petitioner alone, MEO, Balajipeta in M.Books. The misappropriation amount comes to Rs.5,06,301/-, but whereas the amount mentioned by the Quality Control Department comes to Rs.1,50,000/-. As per the report dated 28.05.2012 submitted by the ENC to the Government just only a deskwork and further, the three officials were responsible for the loss to the Government and it is further submitted that the Vigilance and Quality Control Department has reported that inspection teams did not identify the balance of works during their inspection conducted 3 to 4 years back and at this stage i.e., after 8 years of execution of those works, it is highly difficult to identify and inspect the work now. It is further stated that the Enquiry Officer submitted a report. In the enquiry, the petitioner submitted his defence to the effect that initial report of Quality Controller finds that only Rs.1,50,000/- was misappropriated, but in the report of the ENC, the amount encroached to Rs.5,06,301/-. The enquiry Officer failed to take into consideration of the defence submitted by the petitioner and failed to give any reasons to the effect that the loss caused to the Government is Rs.5,06,301/- and that there is no evidence produced by the Department before the Enquiry Officer. So, findings are bad in law. It is further stated that the incident pertains to 2008 and the punishment imposed on the petitioner is in 2022. So, there is lot of delay in departmental proceedings. The petitioner is having only 2 years of service and his son is studying Medicine, if the punishment is imposed, he has to undergo hardship before this retirement for no fault of him in delay in departmental enquiry, in spite of the report submitted by the Quality Control and vigilance Department to recover Rs.1,50,000/- from all the three persons who are responsible at that time. However, for the reasons best known to the administration, the petitioner was alone penalized. The respondents have left off the others and imposed major penalty against the petitioner, which amounts to selective punishment and it is disproportionate. Therefore, questioning the same, the present writ petition is filed. 3. However, for the reasons best known to the administration, the petitioner was alone penalized. The respondents have left off the others and imposed major penalty against the petitioner, which amounts to selective punishment and it is disproportionate. Therefore, questioning the same, the present writ petition is filed. 3. Counter affidavit is filed by the 1st respondent denying all the allegations made in the petition and contended that the Inquiry authority has furnished inquiry report dated 20.02.2017, wherein, the petitioner has admitted in his defence statement about adding of measurements but pleaded to excuse the same as he recorded those measurements un-knowingly. The Inquiry Authority has also mentioned that the petitioner in another statement also he had written in between specified lines in the M.Books due to completion of link in his pen and asked ball point pen from another person and wrote the balance recording. The inquiry officer further mentioned that the petitioner has stated that the Executive Engineer, Vigilance & Quality Control, Visakhapatnam has recommended for recovery of Rs.1,50,003/- only but not Rs.5,06,301/- but on verification of the report dated 02.03.2008 it was found that Rs.1,50,003/- recovery was proposed for 43 works verified, but charges were framed subsequently for recovery of Rs.5,06,301/- for 66 works verified by the Vigilance & Quality Control Visakhapatnam. Hence, the contention of the petitioner is not correct and accordingly the inquiry authority concluded inquiry report and stated that charge framed against the petitioner is held proved. It is also stated that with regard to Sri L.N.V. Sridhar Raja, MPDO, the Inquiry Authority ahs mentioned that charge is not proved against him with respect to financial loss to Government but certain procedural lapses were found such as errors committed in making pass orders while making payments to work bills. It is further stated that the disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the petitioner and others in the disciplinary case. After due consultation with A.P. Advisory commission and after following due procedure under rule 20 of APCS (CC&A) Rules 1991 Government have issued final orders dropping further action against the Charged Officers 1 and 2. But in respect of the petitioner, the Government have imposed the penalty besides recovery vide G.O.Rt.No.686, dated 27.12.2021. As such the delay occurred in finalizing the disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner is only administrative in nature. 4. But in respect of the petitioner, the Government have imposed the penalty besides recovery vide G.O.Rt.No.686, dated 27.12.2021. As such the delay occurred in finalizing the disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner is only administrative in nature. 4. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader for Services-IV appearing for the respondents. 5. During hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner has reiterated the averments made in the petition and contended that the respondents have left off the others and imposed major penalty against the petitioner, which amounts to selective punishment. Further this major penalty is disproportionate. Therefore, on the ground of selective and disproportionate punishment, the impugned order is liable to be set aside. Learned counsel has relied upon a decision reported in D. Srinivas Vs. Govt. of A.P., Transport, R&B (Vig.I) Dept., and others, 2013 (4) ALT 1 (D.B.), wherein a Division Bench of High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad held that : “…it is to be noticed that the charge relates to the year 1998 and no steps were taken immediately on the subject-matter of the charge. Only pursuant to the complaint lodged against the Executive Engineer (Electrical) alone before the Upa-Lokayuktha, A.P., and basing on the ex parte preliminary enquiry report, proceedings were initiated which were later dropped. Therefore, regular departmental enquiry is conducted and on one ground or the other the enquiry officers were changed, which is admitted in the counter-affidavit, stating that delay is only on account of administrative reasons. Having regard to the nature of charge and the plea of delay, we are of the considered view that there is abnormal and unexplained delay on the part of the disciplinary authority in completing the enquiry and imposing punishment. …” 6. Having regard to the nature of charge and the plea of delay, we are of the considered view that there is abnormal and unexplained delay on the part of the disciplinary authority in completing the enquiry and imposing punishment. …” 6. On the other hand, learned Government Pleader while reiterating the contentions made in the counter, contended that though the charge relating to tampering of M.Books held proved in the preliminary enquiry conducted by the V&QC Teams of Visakhapatnam vide report dated 26.04.2011 as well as the inquiry report dated 20.02.2017 of Superintending Engineer, PR, Vizianagaram and the Government after considering the same, imposed a lesser penalty of stoppage of three annual grade increments with cumulative effect against the petitioner under Rule 9 of A.P.C.S (CC&A) Rules, 1991 besides recovery of Rs.5,06,301/- in lumpsum from him at Bank rate +2% as per Article 300 of A.P. Financial code (Volume I) in the matter vide G.O.Rt.No.686, dated 27.12.2021 and after concurrence of A.P.P.S.C. As such, the contention of the petitioner that the Government imposed a selective and disproportionate punishment against the petitioner is not correct. He also submitted that the written statement of defence of the petitioner and also his version during the regular inquiry establish about tampering of M.Books by him. As a prudent officer he has to know the consequences on tampering of M.Books by inserting extra writings with different inks. Hence the Government after following due procedure and in consultation with A.P. Advisory Commission and A.P. Public Service Commission, have imposed the penalty besides recovery. 7. On hearing, this Court observed that, as per the impugned proceedings dated 08.03.2022 issued by the 3rd respondent, wherein it was mentioned that, the individual is hereby informed that the entire amount of Rs.8,01,999/- should be remitted to the Government funds immediately. If the individual failed to remit the amount immediately, the same will be recovered from the benefits which will be due to him without giving any further notice and duly calculating the interest upto the date of remittance/recovery. Moreover, the petitioner, in his defence statement, stated that, as alleged in the charge that tampering was done by him by adding/recording extra measurements in M.Biooks is not correct since he has added the measurements which are existing in the ground, but unknowingly, he has recorded those measurements with another pen, for which, he may be excused. Moreover, the petitioner, in his defence statement, stated that, as alleged in the charge that tampering was done by him by adding/recording extra measurements in M.Biooks is not correct since he has added the measurements which are existing in the ground, but unknowingly, he has recorded those measurements with another pen, for which, he may be excused. He further stated in his defence statement that the measurements recorded in the M.Books mostly visible during the inspection of Vig & QC team, and they have verified those measurements. The set of measurements which could has recorded as 2nd set or subsequent set to its previous set of the same work were recorded in the proceeding set due to un-knowing of procedure of recording but not with the intention of tampering. Finally, he stated that the works executed in the year 2000 to 2003 and the Vig. & QC team inspected the works after a lapse of 5 working seasons. Naturally the earth work will erode due to heavy rains in Ballijipeta mandal area. The amount of loss mentioned in the charge memo is varies from the original report of EE, PR Vig & QC, Visakhapatnam, Hence, the petitioner requested the authorities to kindly consider the above facts and E.E., Vig & QC, Visakhapatnam report, dated 02.03.2008 since the works are got verified by the Vig. & QC teams. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the respondents without conducting elaborate enquiry and decided that the petitioner is found guilty and mechanically passed the impugned order against the petitioner, which is not in accordance with law and requested to remand the matter to the respondents for conducting elaborate enquiry and final report. 8. Though admittedly the petitioner submitted her written explanation, the same was not considered and no personal hearing was also granted to the petitioner at the time of enquiry. Therefore, the writ petition is maintainable. 9. In Whirlpool Corporation Vs. Registrar of Trade Marks, Mumbai and others, AIR 1999 SC 22 : MANU/SC/0664/1998 regarding maintainability of writ petition in the context of availability of alternative and efficacious remedy, the Apex Court held thus: 14. The power to issue prerogative writs under Article 226 of the Constitution is plenary in nature and is not limited by any other provision of the Constitution. The power to issue prerogative writs under Article 226 of the Constitution is plenary in nature and is not limited by any other provision of the Constitution. This power can be exercised by the High Court not only for issuing writs in the nature of Habeas Corpus, Mandamus, prohibition, Qua Warranto and Certiorari for the enforcement of any of the Fundamental Rights contained in Part III of the Constitution but also for "any other purpose". 15. Under Article 226 of the Constitution, the High Court, having regard to the facts of the case, has discretion to entertain or not to entertain a writ petition. But the High Court has imposed upon itself certain restrictions one of which is that if an effective and efficacious remedy is available, the High Court would not normally exercise its jurisdiction. But the alternative remedy has been consistently held by this court not to operate as a bar in at least three contingencies, namely, where the Writ Petition has been filed for the enforcement of any of the Fundamental rights or where there has been a violation of the principle of natural justice or where the order or proceedings are wholly without jurisdiction or the vires of an Act is challenged (emphasis supplied). The instant case falls in one of the exceptions carved out by the Apex Court, the principles of natural justice is a casualty here. 10. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and submissions of the both the counsel, the impugned proceedings in Prog.No.A1/UVR/2013, dated 08.03.2022 passed by the 3rd respondent against the petitioner is hereby set aside and the matter is remanded to the 3rd respondent to conduct elaborate enquiry in accordance with law, within a period of eight (08) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 11. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs. As a sequel, interlocutory applications, if any pending, shall stand closed.