ORDER : (K. Manmadha Rao, J.) 1. This 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 Certiorari calling for the records pertaining to order dated 30 08 2012 in OA No 329/2011 on the file of the Hon’ble Central Administrative Tribunal Hyderabad Bench Hyderabad and quash the same as illegal arbitrary contrary to law and unconstitutional and pass such other order or orders …” 2. Brief facts of the case are that, consequent upon implementation of V Central Pay Commission, declarations were required to be obtained from all the employees at the time of making payment of arrears of pay & allowances to all the employees to guard against overpayments, vide Ministry of Finance, Department of Expenditure Memorandum No.F.No.50(2)/97/IC-1, dated 14.10.1997, communicated vide Directorate, New Delhi, letter No.23-08/97 PE.1 (PCC) Pt.1, dated 15.10.1997. But the applicant/respondent while working as Accountant, Vijayawada, HO during the period from 26.6.1997 to 28.02.1999 has failed to obtain the declarations from Postman staff and draw the V Central Pay Commission arrears by giving two advance increments wrongly/excessively in each stage of fixation of pay to all the postman staff. When the excess payments made were noticed and ordered to be recovered from concerned Staff, the All India Postal Employees Union (Postmen & Group D) has preferred O.A.No.283 of 2003 on the file of Principal Bench, Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), New Delhi and the said O.A. was disposed of on 13.09.2004 and directed the respondents/petitioners herein that they would be within their rights to effect recovery from the applicants in case they had submitted their undertakings in terms of O.M., dated 14.10.1997, and further directed to verify from their records whether the applicants have submitted undertaking in terms of O.M. dated 14.10.1997, if so, they would be entitled to effect recoveries of excess payments. If not, respondents would not be entitled to affect any recovery and in case they made any recoveries so far, the same shall be refunded to the applicants. The same has been upheld by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India. If not, respondents would not be entitled to affect any recovery and in case they made any recoveries so far, the same shall be refunded to the applicants. The same has been upheld by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India. In view of the said order, the Postal Directorate, New Delhi issued orders vide Lr.No.2-14/2002-PCC, dated 25.11.2004 mentioning that, if undertakings were not obtained by the Drawing and Disbursement Officer, responsibility may be fixed and recovery affected from the Officers at fault. Thereafter, the Postal Directorate, New Delhi vide Lr.No.2- 4/2006-PCC, dated 14.03.2007 has decided to implement order, dated 13.09.2004 passed in O.A. No.283 of 2003 by the Principal Bench, CAT, Delhi, in full to all Postmen & Mail guards irrespective of their affiliation to any union and effect the recoveries from the officials who had given undertakings provided any other Court/CAT has not stayed recovery. It is further stated that, during course of verification, it is observed that the required undertakings prescribed vide Ministry of Finance, Department of Expenditure Memorandum No.F.No. 50(2)/97/IC.1, dated 14.10.1997, were not obtained from postman staff concerned by the then Accountant II, Vijayawada HO, and due to which, excess payment of pay & allowances to a tune of Rs.7,07,109/- were paid to postman staff under the accounts jurisdiction of Vijayawada HO. It is further stated that Sri G. Suryanarayana, the then Accountant-II, i.e., respondent herein was identified as official responsible for the above excess payment, a charge sheet was issued under Rule-16 of Central Civil Service (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 (for short CCS (CCA) Rules”) vide Memo No.PF/GSN/ AON/KW/2007, dated 11.5.2007. However, on considering the representation of respondent, the charge sheet was dropped on 18.12.2007. Thereafter, the reviewing authority i.e., Director of Postal Services, O/o Postmaster General, Vijayawada-2nd petitioner herein has reviewed the case and opined that the charge sheet should not have been dropped and ordered for remitting back the case to Disciplinary authority i.e., the Senior Postmaster, Vijayawada1st petitioner herein, for issuing charge sheet afresh vide Memo No.ST-IV/17/02/08 dated 25.5.2009. Accordingly, the 1st petitioner issued a fresh charge sheet on 01.07.2009 under CCS (CCA) Rules. Basing on the representation filed by respondent and on perusal of entire record, the disciplinary authority awarded a penalty of recovery of Rs.36,000/- @ Rs.1,000/- per month from the salary of the applicant on 8.7.2009. Accordingly, the 1st petitioner issued a fresh charge sheet on 01.07.2009 under CCS (CCA) Rules. Basing on the representation filed by respondent and on perusal of entire record, the disciplinary authority awarded a penalty of recovery of Rs.36,000/- @ Rs.1,000/- per month from the salary of the applicant on 8.7.2009. Aggrieved b y the same, the respondent preferred an appeal before the Appellate Authority i.e., the Director of Postal Services, Vijayawada Region-2nd petitioner herein. The appellate authority found guilt committed by the respondent and proposed to enhance the penalty as per the powers conferred under Rule 27 of CCS (CCA) Rules and has given an opportunity to make representation, if any. Thereafter, the respondent submitted a representation dated 22.02.2011 to the appellate authority. Basing on the representation along with connected records, the appellate authority found that the punishment awarded by the disciplinary authority is not commensurate with the gravity of irregularity committed by the respondent and loss sustained by the department and hence enhanced the penalty of recovery from Rs.36,000/- to Rs.4,71,406/- to be recovered in 72 installments from the Pay & Allowances of respondent vide Memo No.ST-IV/13/02/10, dated 28.3.2011. Being not satisfied with the same, the respondent preferred O.A. No.329 of 2011 before the Hon’ble Tribunal, Hyderabad and the Tribunal has granted interim stay on recovery which was implemented by the petitioners. After filing the reply by the 1st petitioner, the tribunal, vide its order, dated 30.8.2012, has set aside the impugned order, dated 8.07.2009 and directed the respondents/petitioners herein to refund the recovered amount if any to the respondent within two months from the date of supply of copy of the order. Questioning the same, the present writ petition came to be filed. 4. Counter affidavit has been filed by the respondent denying all the allegations made in the petition. It is stated that the respondent was not the drawing and disbursing officer at any point of time and the duties of same are also not entrusted to him. The pay fixations were done and the payments were made by the drawing and disbursing officer. The same was approved by the audit of the office of Director of Postal accounts. It is further stated that no inquiry was initiated against the concerned drawing and disbursing officers but the respondent was made a scape goat by initiating enquiry. The pay fixations were done and the payments were made by the drawing and disbursing officer. The same was approved by the audit of the office of Director of Postal accounts. It is further stated that no inquiry was initiated against the concerned drawing and disbursing officers but the respondent was made a scape goat by initiating enquiry. Thereafter, the disciplinary authority dropped the charges against the respondent since he was not responsible for the alleged charges. It is further stated that, without issuing notice and seeking explanation from the respondent, the 2nd petitioner issued Memo No.ST/IV/17/2/2008, dated 25.05.2008 and directed the 1st petitioner to issue a fresh charge memo and to conduct enquiry as per Rule 16 of CCS (CCA) Rules. Accordingly, the 1st petitioner again issued same charge memo on 01.07.2009. Thereafter, the respondent submitted his explanation dated 07.07.2009 stating that the 2nd charge memo is not maintainable as they cannot initiate fresh enquiry. But, without considering his explanation in a proper perspective manner, the 1st petitioner had imposed penalty of recovery of Rs.36,000/- from his salary in installments with immediate effect vide Memo PF/GSN/ APM/KN/2007, dated 8.7.2009. Aggrieved by the same, the respondent preferred an appeal before the appellate authority and the appellate authority had arbitrarily enhanced the penalty of recovery from Rs.36,000/- to Rs.4,71,406/-. Challenging the same, the respondent preferred OA No.329 of 2011 before the CAT, Hyderabad. The same was allowed vide order dated 8.7.2009 and directed the respondents therein to refund the recovered amount if any. It is further stated that the CAT, Hyderabad, vide its order, dated 30.8.2012, held that the 2nd charge memo, dated 1.7.2009 issued against the respondent for holding enquiry under Rule 16 of CCS (CCA) Rules after conclusion of enquiry dated 11.5.2007 on the same charges is not at all maintainable and according to the petitioners, it is joint responsibility with other officers, and the huge amount of loss to a tune of Rs.7,07,109/- caused to the department because of negligence on the part of the respondent along with other officials and therefore detailed enquiry is required to prove the charges for fixing the responsibilities of the officers. Therefore, the CAT, Hyderabad, had set aside the penalty orders dated 8.7.2009 and 28.3.2011 and directed to refund the recovered amount to the respondent. Therefore, the CAT, Hyderabad, had set aside the penalty orders dated 8.7.2009 and 28.3.2011 and directed to refund the recovered amount to the respondent. In view of the categorical findings of the Hon’ble CAT and non-granting of stay of operation of order in O.A.No.329 of 2011 by this Court, the petitioners have no power to withhold the encashment of earned leave to a tune of Rs.4,71,406/-, and hence, the impugned order, dated 5.8.2021 is liable to be set aside. 5. Heard learned Central Government Counsel appearing for the petitioners and Sri A. Rajendra Babu, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent. 6. On hearing, learned Central Government Counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the order under appeal is contrary to law and weight of the evidence and probabilities of case, as such, the same is liable to be set aside. He submits that as per instructions contained in para 5 of Ministry of Finance Department of Expenditure Memo No.F.No.50(2)/97/IC-1, dated 15.10.1997, the declarations have to be obtained to guard against the overpayments of arrears consequent on implementation of V Central Pay Commission from all the employees while making payments. But the respondent failed to follow the said instructions which resulted in non-recovery of excess paid, pay & allowances from the concerned postmen staff to the tune of Rs.7,07,109/-. He mainly contended that as per Memorandum of Distribution of Work (MDW) maintained at Vijayawada HO, it is the duty of Accountant-II, Vijayawada HO, to maintain the Service books, draw pay & allowances to all the postman staff and to preserve the copies of relevant orders/declarations etc., in the service book of concerned staff. But the respondent failed to do the same, due to which, the Government of India, Department of Posts, has sustained a loss of Rs.7,07,109/-. He further submits that the Hon’ble Tribunal failed to appreciate that the orders issued by the Postal Directorate, New Delhi, vide letter No.2-14/2002-PCC, dated 25.11.2004, in which, the Drawing and Disbursing officers were directed to fix up responsibility and effect recovery, in case of non-obtaining of undertakings are in compliance with the order, dated 13.9.2004 of CAT, New Delhi, in O.A.No.283 of 2003. 7. 7. To support of his contention, learned counsel has placed reliance on a decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in UT of Dadra & amp; Nagar Haveli v. Gulabhia M.Lad., (2010) 5 SCC 775 , wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court held that : The scope of judicial review in disciplinary matters has come up for consideration before this Court time and again. It is worthwhile to refer to some of these decisions. In the case of B.C. Chaturvedi v. Union of India and Others, this Court held: "18. A review of the above legal position would establish that the disciplinary authority, and on appeal the appellate authority, being fact-finding authorities have exclusive power to consider the evidence with a view to maintain discipline. They are invested with the discretion to impose appropriate punishment keeping in view the magnitude or gravity of the misconduct. The High Court/Tribunal, while exercising the power of judicial review, cannot normally substitute its own conclusion on penalty and impose some other penalty. If the punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority or the appellate authority shocks the conscience of the High Court/Tribunal, it would appropriately mould the relief, either directing the disciplinary/appellate authority to reconsider the penalty imposed, or to shorten the litigation, it may itself, in exceptional and rare cases, impose appropriate punishment with cogent reasons in support thereof". 8. He further submits that the respondent, being a Central Government Servant, has not fully utilized all the official channel of representation available to him under CCS (CCA) Rules and the respondent can prefer a petition to the Chief Postmaster General, AP Circle, Hyderabad-3rd petitioner and he can further prefer a revision petition to Directorate, New Delhi, in case, he is aggrieved with the orders of the Chief Postmaster General-3rd petitioner. But the respondent without fully exhausting his official channel of representation has approached the CAT, Hyderabad, by way of filing O.A.No.329 of 2011. He also submits that the CAT, Hyderabad, has not taken the relevant facts into consideration while passing the impugned order, dated 30.08.2012, and hence, the same is not sustainable in the eye of law. The implementation of judgment dated 30.08.2012 in O.A.No.329 of 2011 will have huge repercussion and will be set as precedence. 9. He also submits that the CAT, Hyderabad, has not taken the relevant facts into consideration while passing the impugned order, dated 30.08.2012, and hence, the same is not sustainable in the eye of law. The implementation of judgment dated 30.08.2012 in O.A.No.329 of 2011 will have huge repercussion and will be set as precedence. 9. On the other hand, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent, while reiterating the contents made in the counter, submits that, the respondent was not the drawing and disbursing officer at any point of time and the duties of drawing and disbursing are not entrusted to him. The pay fixations were done and the payments were made by the drawing and disbursing officer and the same was approved by the audit of office of Director of Postal Accounts. He further submits that no inquiry was initiated against the concerned drawing and disbursing officers, but the respondent was made a scape goat by initiating enquiry. He further submits that the charges leveled against the respondent were dropped by the disciplinary authority since the respondent was not responsible for the alleged charges. The A.P.M. Accounts and Senior Postmaster are the drawing and disbursing officers and also the supervisory authorities for fixation of pay. According to the petitioners, the respondent was jointly responsible with that of the then Senior Post Master and in such circumstances without conducting a joint enquiry and also a detailed enquiry by examining the concerned, giving any conclusion against the charges based on the charge memo is not at all valid. Non conducting of joint enquiry and also detailed enquiry in spite of request of the respondent shows that the authorities have not acted fairly in deciding the case against the respondent in respect of the charges that he was responsible for causing loss to the department. He further submits that non-conducting of joint enquiry against the other officers vitiate the enquiry proceedings and fixing responsibility against the respondent is highly illegal and discriminatory. He also submits that in view of the findings of the Hon’ble Tribunal fixing responsibility against the respondent alone is highly illegal. 10. He further submits that non-conducting of joint enquiry against the other officers vitiate the enquiry proceedings and fixing responsibility against the respondent is highly illegal and discriminatory. He also submits that in view of the findings of the Hon’ble Tribunal fixing responsibility against the respondent alone is highly illegal. 10. Learned counsel further submits that the Government of India has issued instructions in OM No.11012/18/85-estt(A), dated 28.10.1985, for following procedure for imposing minor penalties under Rule 16 of CCS (CCA) Rules, according to which, the discretion is vested the disciplinary authority to hold enquiry or not due consideration of the request. If the disciplinary authority has come to a conclusion that an inquiry is not necessary, he has to indicate the reasons and the summary rejection of the request would amount to violation of principles of natural justice. He further submits that in view of not following the procedure as contemplated under Rule 16, and there is no joint enquiry conducted by the petitioners for fixing responsibility for a particular act or acts of negligence, or breach of order or rules. The petitioners cannot contend that the case is established against the respondent and the petitioners cannot invoke the provision of Rule 106 of Postal Manual Volume III for imposing penalty of recovery. He mainly contended that as per the distribution of work maintained at Vijayawada HO, it is the duty of the Accountant to maintain service books but not the duty to draw pay and allowances to the postmen staff and as per circulars issued by the Government Ministry of Finance, the drawing and disbursing officer should obtain undertaking from the postmen at the time of payment, if they failed to obtain the undertakings, they should be made responsible and the respondent cannot be made responsible for their lapses and cannot recover from his salary. Hence there is no infirmity in the order passed by the tribunal. 11. On a perusal of material available on record, this Court observes that, as per instructions in para No.5 of the Ministry of Finance Department of Expenditure Memo F.No.50(2)/97/IC-I, dated 15.10.1997 (Annexure R-I) declarations were required to be obtained to guard against the overpayments of arrears consequent on implementation of the V Central Pay Commission (CPC) from all the employees while making payments. But the respondent, while working as Accountant-II, Vijayawada HO, during the period from 26.6.1997 to 28.2.1999, has failed to obtain the required declarations from the Officials and drawn the V Central Pay Commission (CPC) arrears to the Postmen staff by giving two advance increments in each stage of fixation of their pay by the respondent. It is also verified from the records of Vijayawada HO that, an amount of Rs.7,07,109/- was paid excess to the postmen staff consequent on fixation of their pay and allowances in 5th CPC, without obtaining the declarations from concerned officials as directed by Directorate in OM, dated 14.10.1997 and found that the respondent has failed to obtain and keep declarations in the Service Books of respective is responsible for the irregularity. 12. As seen from the order, dated 25.05.2009, issued by 2nd petitioner-the Director of Postal Services, O/o. Postmaster General, Vijayawada, wherein it is stated that “…he had obtained the declarations and handed over them to the DDO through the APM (Accounts) that the pay would not have been fixed without obtaining the declarations. He repeatedly reiterated the version that he obtained the declarations where as in his representation submitted in reply to the charge sheet he stated that he does not know the instructions to obtain the declarations as the Directorate letter was not circulated to him. Thus, the official suppressed the factual information and misled the disciplinary authority.” The disciplinary authority could not check the incorrect submission made by the official by going through the connected record carefully and came to a conclusion to drop the charge sheet. 13. This Court further observes at page No.128 of material papers, that, as per Memorandum of Distribution of Work (MDW) maintained at Vijayawada Head Post Office, it is the duty of Accountant-II, Vijayawada HO, to maintain the Service books, draw pay & allowances to all the postman staff and to preserve the copies of relevant orders/declarations etc., in the service book of concerned staff. 14. 14. It is pertinent to be noted that, in the Schedule I-A of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965, it is mentioned as under: "appointing authority", in relation to a Government servant, means – (i) the authority empowered to make appointments to the Service of which the Government servant is for the time being a member or to the grade of the Service in which the Government servant is for the time being included, or (ii) the authority empowered to make appointments to the post which the Government servant for the time being holds, or (iii) the authority which appointed the Government servant to such Service, grade or post, as the case may be, or (iv) where the Government servant having been a permanent member of any other Service or having substantively held any other permanent post, has been in continuous employment of the Government, the authority which appointed him to that Service or to any grade in that Service or to that post, whichever authority is the highest authority; 15. It is also noticed that as per Rule 18 of the said Rules, reads as under: 18. Common Proceedings : (1) where two or more Government servants are concerned in any case, the President or any other authority competent to impose the penalty or of dismissal from service on all such Government servants may make an order directing that disciplinary action against all of them may be taken in a common proceedings. Note : If the authorities competent to impose the penalty of dismissal on such government servants are different, an order for taking disciplinary action in a common proceeding may be made by the highest of such authorities with the consent of the others. 16. As between two parties, if a determination is rendered in favour of the party, which is the weaker of the two, without any serious detriment to the other (which is truly a welfare State), the issue resolved would be in consonance with the concept of justice, which is assured to the citizens of India, even in the preamble of the Constitution of India. The right to recover being pursued by the employer, will have to be compared, with the effect of the recovery on the concerned employee. The right to recover being pursued by the employer, will have to be compared, with the effect of the recovery on the concerned employee. If the effect of the recovery from the concerned employee would be, more unfair, more wrongful, more improper, and more unwarranted, than the corresponding right of the employer to recover the amount, then it would be iniquitous and arbitrary, to effect the recovery. In such a situation, the employee's right would outbalance, and therefore eclipse, the right of the employer to recover. 17. In view of the afore-stated constitutional mandate, equity and good conscience, in the matter of livelihood of the people of this country, has to be the basis of all Governmental actions. An action of the State, ordering a recovery from an employee, would be in order, so long as it is not rendered iniquitous to the extent, that the action of recovery would be more unfair, more wrongful, more improper, and more unwarranted, than the corresponding right of the employer, to recover the amount. Or in other words, till such time as the recovery would have a harsh and arbitrary effect on the employee, it would be permissible in law. Orders passed in given situations repeatedly, even in exercise of the power vested in this Court under Article 142 of the Constitution of India, will disclose the parameters of the realm of an action of recovery (of an excess amount paid to an employee) which would breach the obligations of the State, to citizens of this country, and render the action arbitrary, and therefore, violative of the mandate contained in Article 14 of the Constitution of India. 18. We have carefully considered the submissions made by both the learned counsels and perused the material placed on record. 19. This Court in a catena of decisions has consistently held that if the excess amount was not paid on account of any misrepresentation or fraud of the employee or if such excess payment was made by the employer by applying a wrong principle for calculating the pay/allowance or on the basis of a particular interpretation of rule/order which is subsequently found to be erroneous, such excess payment of emoluments or allowances are not recoverable. The relief against the recovery is granted not because of any right of the employees but in equity, exercising duty, exercising judicial discretion to provide relief to the employees from the hardship that will be caused, if the recovery is ordered. 20. This Court further observes that, if in the present case, it is proved that an employee had knowledge that the payment received was in excess of what was due or wrongly paid, or in cases where error is defected or corrected within a short time of wrong payment, the matter being in the realm of judicial discretion, the courts may on the facts and the circumstances of any particular case order for recovery of amount paid in excess. In fact, the case of the respondent is that excess payment was made due to mistake which was subsequently pointed out by the Accountant General. 21. This Court further observed that the petitioner reopened the matter under Rule 106 of Postal Manual Volume III (PMV III) and thereafter reviewed the matter and imposed penalty. It shows that the petitioner followed procedure laid down under Rule 106 of PMV III. The same is extracted hereunder: Rule 106 : Imposition of the penalty of recovery – In the case of proceedings relating to recovery of pecuniary losses caused to the Government by negligence, or breach of orders of a Government servant, the penalty of recovery can be imposed only when it is established that the Government servant was responsible for a 33 particular act or acts of negligence or breach of orders or rules and that negligence or breach caused the loss. 22. It is pertinent to mention here that the Rules 29, 29A and 27 of CCS(CCA) Rules, which reads as under: 29. REVISION 29. 22. It is pertinent to mention here that the Rules 29, 29A and 27 of CCS(CCA) Rules, which reads as under: 29. REVISION 29. (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in these rules: (i) the President, or (ii) the Comptroller and Auditor General, in the case of a Government servant serving in the Indian Audit and Accounts Department, or (i) The Postal Board in the case of a Government servant serving in or under the Postal or (ii) The head of a department directly under the Central Government in the case of Government servant serving in a department or office, (not being the secretary or the postal board), under the control of such head of a department, or (iii) The appellate authority, within six months of the date of the order proposed to be reviewed, or (iv) Any other authority specified in this behalf by the President by a general or special order, and within such time as may be prescribed in such general or special order; May at any time, either on his or its own motion or otherwise call for the records of any inquiry and revise any order made under these rules or under the rules repealed by rule 34 from which no appeal is allowed but from which no appeal has been preferred or from which no appeal is allowed, after consultation which the Commission where such consultation is necessary, and may- a. Confirm, modify or set aside the order, or b. Confirm, reduce, enhance or set aside the penalty imposed by the order, or impose any penalty where no penalty has been imposed, or c. Remit the case to the authority which made the order or to any other authority directing such authority to make such further inquiry as it may consider proper in the circumstances of the case, or d. Pass such other orders as it may deem fit: 29A. The President may, at any time, either on his own motion of otherwise, revise any order passed under these rules, when any new material or evidence which could not be produced or was not available at the time of passing the order under revision and which has the effect of changing the nature of the case has come, or has been brought, to his notice; Provided that no order imposing or enhancing any penalty hall be made by the President unless the Government servant concerned has been given a 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 11 or to enhance the minor penalty imposed by the order ought to be revised to any of the major penalties and if any enquiry under rule 14 has not already been held in the case, no such penalty shall be imposed except after inquiring in the manner laid down in rule 14, subject to the provisions of rule 19, and except after consultation with the commission where such consultation is necessary. 27. Consideration of appeal – (1) in the case of an appeal against an order of suspension the appellate authority shall consider whether in the light of the provisions of rule 10 and having regard to the circumstances of the case; the order of supspension is justified or not and confirm or revoke the order accordingly. (2) In case of an appeal against an order imposing any of the penalties specified in rule 11 or enhancing any penalty imposed under the said rule, the appellate authority shall consider : (a) where the procedure laid down in these rules ahs bene complied with and if not, whether such non-compliance has resulted in the violation of any provisions of he Constitution of India or in the failure of justice; (b) Whether the findings of the disciplinary authority are warranted by the evidence on the record, and (c) whether the penalty or the enhance penalty imposed is adequate, inadequate or severe, And pass orders : (v) Confirming, enhancing reducing, or setting aside the penalty, or (vi) Remitting the case to the authority which imposed or enhance the penalty or to any other authority with such direction as it may deem fit in the circumstances of the case; 23. The only issue that remains for consideration is whether the Director of Postal Services passed impugned proceedings by following rules under CCS (CCA) Rules and also under Postal Manual Volume-III ? 24. This Court observed that the petitioner authorities are vitiated the Rule 29 and Rule 16 of CCS (CCA) Rules. Further, unless the Government servant concerned has been given a 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 11 or to enhance the minor penalty imposed by the order ought to be revised to any of the major penalties and if any enquiry under rule 14 has not already been held in the case, no such penalty shall be imposed except after inquiring in the manner laid down in Rule 14. 25. It is further observed that the respondent submitted a representation dated 22.2.2011 to the appellate authority i.e., 2nd petitioner and the 2nd petitioner has enhanced the penalty of recovery from Rs.36,000/- to Rs.4,71,406/- to be recovered in 72 installments from the Pay & Allowances of respondent. Thereafter, the respondent preferred O.A.No.329 of 2011 before the tribunal and the tribunal straightaway set aside the impugned orders dated 8.7.2009 issued by the 1st petitioner and dated 28.3.2011 issued by the 2nd petitioner. Moreover, the 2nd petitioner while proposing to enhance the penalty imposed by the 1st petitioner had not indicated the nature of punishment against which the respondent could have made a representation dispelling the contentions of the 2nd petitioner had just given a notice for enhancement, but there was no reasonable opportunity given to the respondent as to the nature of punishment that is going to be visited with. There is no power to review or enhance the penalty to the Government servant and as per procedure the senior officer has to take action. It is trite that the principle of audi alterm partem should be followed. 26. This Court further observed that basing on the representation submitted by the respondent, the disciplinary authority awarded a penalty of recovery of Rs.36,000/- and thereafter, the appellate authority has enhanced the same from Rs.36,000/- to Rs.4,71,406/-. It is trite that the principle of audi alterm partem should be followed. 26. This Court further observed that basing on the representation submitted by the respondent, the disciplinary authority awarded a penalty of recovery of Rs.36,000/- and thereafter, the appellate authority has enhanced the same from Rs.36,000/- to Rs.4,71,406/-. Admittedly, the excess payment of Pay and allowances was to a tune of Rs.7,07,109/- and the allegations were levelled against the respondent only but other officials were not brought on record and no action has been taken against them. Moreover the penalty was imposed as Rs.36,000/- by the disciplinary authority and the same was enhanced as Rs.4,71,406/- by the appellate authority. This Court is not able to understand as to how the authorities determined and calculated the amount of excess payment and how they fixed the amount and how they came to a conclusion that the respondent alone is responsible for the said amount. There is nothing mentioned in the documents filed by the petitioners, and they simply stated that the respondent alone is liable to pay the excess payment. 27. In view of the foregoing discussion, it is observed that, at page No.128 of the material shows that, it is a printed matter but the headings are noted by writing at M.D.W of Vijayawada HO, Accountant-II. At what extent it is relevant in the category for performing duties according to this. It is a suspectable document. Moreover it has not been filed before the CAT, Hyderabad. So, it appears that only substantiating the evidence for argument sake the petitioners filed this document. 28. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that the respondent has preferred an application before the CAT, Hyderabad only on the ground that the 1st petitioner while passing the punishment order on the second charge sheet which is in letter and spirit was the same as the earlier one that was dropped on due consideration had not assigned any cogent and reasonable grounds to impose the penalty of recovery of Rs.36,000/-. The drawing and disbursing officers and the Assistant Post Master have since retired and they being the alleged responsible persons the petitioners could have initiated any proceedings if desired against them, but the 1st petitioner who is also involved in the case has acted as a disciplinary authority and therefore the disciplinary authority who is a party to the lis cannot be acted as Disciplinary authority. 29. It is pertinent to mention here that the Government of India vide G.I. Department of Per. & Trg : O.M. No.11012/18/85-estt.(A), dated 28.10.1985, had suggested that Rule 16(1) should be amended so as to provide for holding an inquiry even for imposition of minor penalty, if the accused employee requested for such an inquiry. Rule 16(1-A) of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 provides for the holding of an inquiry even when a minor penalty is to be imposed, Rule 16(1) ibid leaves it to the discretion of Disciplinary authority to decide whether an inquiry should be held or not. As per this rule, on receipt of representation of government servant concerned on the imputations of misconduct or misbehavior communicated to him, the disciplinary authority should apply its mind to all facts and circumstances and the reasons urged in the representation for holding a detailed inquiry and form an opinion whether an inquiry is necessary or not. 30. This Court further observed that the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) without applying its mind in a proper manner, straightaway allowed the petition and set aside the orders of disciplinary authority and the appellate authority, which is not correct in the eye of law. Further, the CAT failed to examine the issue in pursuance of the rules made under CCS (CCA) Rules and under Postal Manual Volume-III. If the appellate authority intends to enhance the penalty, the authority has to strictly adhere Rule 14 of CCS (CCA) Rules. In the present case, it is observed that the concerned authority vitiated the Rule 14 and passed impugned order and the authority has failed to follow the Rule amended by the Government of India vide OM No.11012/18/85-estt.(A) dated 28.10.1986. But the CAT failed and vitiated the entire proceedings and passed the impugned order. Therefore, same is liable to be set aside. 31. But the CAT failed and vitiated the entire proceedings and passed the impugned order. Therefore, same is liable to be set aside. 31. So, in view of the above circumstances, we are of the view that, while setting aside the order dated 30.08.2012 passed in OA No.329 of 2011 by the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), Hyderabad, remand back the matter to the disciplinary authority-1st petitioner to make such further inquiry and pass orders afresh by affording opportunity to the respondent, in accordance with law and as per the rules amended by the Government of India vide OM No.11012/18/85-estt.(A), dated 28.10.1986, within a period of two (02) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Thereafter, in any event of appeal, the appellate authority-2nd petitioner has to re-examine the issue and consider the case of the respondent and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law and as per the rules mentioned above, within a period of two (02) months thereafter. 32. With the above direction, the Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. RAVI NATH TILHARI,J (supplementing)- I have had the advantage of perusing the judgment prepared by my learned brother Dr.K. Manmadha Rao, J and I am in complete agreement with him. However, I wish to supplement the reasoning of his judgment by this order. 33. The respondent while working as Accountant, Vijayawada, HO was served with a charge memo dated 11.05.2007 under rule 16 of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 on the charge that he failed to obtain declarations while fixing the pay of the postman as per the instructions of the Directorate vide letter No.2/14/2002-PCC dated 25.11.2004 and dated 07.11.2006 which resulted in huge amount of loss to a tune of Rs.7,07,109/- to the department. He filed representation dated 20.08.2007 denying the charges. The disciplinary authority conducted the enquiry and passed the order dated 18.12.2007 dropping the charges. The Director of Postal Services-(2nd respondent in the O.A) Authority, competent to review, after perusal of the entire record took the view that the charge sheet should not have been dropped and ordered remitting back the matter to the disciplinary authority for issuing fresh charge memo. Accordingly fresh charge memo dated 01.07.2009 was issued on the same charge as in the earlier charge memo dated 11.05.2007. The respondent submitted reply dated 07.07.2009 denying the charges. Accordingly fresh charge memo dated 01.07.2009 was issued on the same charge as in the earlier charge memo dated 11.05.2007. The respondent submitted reply dated 07.07.2009 denying the charges. After enquiry, the disciplinary authority passed the order dated 08.07.2009 holding the respondent negligent of duty in not obtaining the undertaking resulting into the loss caused to the department. It imposed a penalty of Rs.36,000/- from his pay recoverable in 36 instalments. The appellate authority enhanced the penalty to Rs.4,71,406/-. Challenging the orders of the appellate authority dated 28.03.2011 and the disciplinary authority dated 08.07.2009, the O.A was filed which was allowed by the Tribunal vide the order dated 30.08.2012, setting aside both the orders, with a direction to the petitioners herein to refund the recovered amount, if any, to the respondent. In the writ petition by interim order dated 16.08.2013, this Court directed that the amounts already recovered need not be refunded, pending further orders. 34. One of the reasons assigned, on which the Tribunal has allowed the O.A, is that issuance of the second charge memo dated 01.07.2009 levelling same charges on the same set of facts as in the first charge memo dated 11.05.2007, and conduct of a fresh enquiry, after dropping of the earlier charge memo is nothing but conducting the enquiry twice for the same charges. The aforesaid reasoning is not justified and cannot be sustained for allowing the O.A. The first charge memo dated 11.05.2007 was dropped by the disciplinary authority by order dated 18.12.2007, but the said order was reviewed, suomoto by the Director of Postal Services, A.P. Eastern Region, remitting the matter and directing to conduct fresh enquiry pursuant to which the second charge memo dated 01.07.2009 was issued. The Director of Postal Services was competent and had the jurisdiction to pass such order on review is undisputed and as also held by the Tribunal it was within his power. Further, the order of the Director of Postal Services, was never challenged. It was not under challenge even before the Tribunal in the O.A., which as such had attained finality. Consequently on the said reason, the orders impugned before the Tribunal could not be set aside. 35. Further, the order of the Director of Postal Services, was never challenged. It was not under challenge even before the Tribunal in the O.A., which as such had attained finality. Consequently on the said reason, the orders impugned before the Tribunal could not be set aside. 35. Further, in the order dated 25.05.2009, of the Director of Postal Services, it was clearly mentioned that the respondent vie his letters dated 05.05.2006, 07.07.2006 and 15.02.2007 submitted that he had obtained the declarations and handed over them to the Drawing and Disbursing Officer through the APM (A/CS-II) that pay would not have been fixed without obtaining the declarations. He repeatedly reiterated the words that he obtained the declarations, whereas in his representations submitted in reply to the charge sheet he stated that he did not know the instructions to obtain the declarations as the Directorate letter was not circulated to him. The Director of Postal Services in its order was of the view that the official suppressed the factual information and mislead the disciplinary authority which could not check the incorrect submission made by the official by going through the concerned record and came to the conclusion to drop the charge sheet. Therefore, the Director of Postal Services opined on review of the case that the charge sheet should not have been dropped, and ordered for remitting back the case to the disciplinary authority i.e. the Senior Postmaster for issuing charge sheet afresh by citing clear and relevant rulings. Thus, the order on review assigned reasons for such order. However, the Tribunal missed the aforesaid points and held illegally that the issuance of second charge memo after first enquiry was not at all maintainable. The Tribunal miserably failed to appreciate that the dropping of the proceedings on the first charge memo did not attain finality and in fact it was the continuation of the same disciplinary proceedings against the respondent. 36. With the above observations, I concur with the opinion of my learned brother. 37. As a sequel, all the pending miscellaneous applications shall stand closed.