ORDER : This writ petition has been filed seeking to call for the records relating to the impugned proceedings issued in G.O. Rt.No.727, Social Welfare (Ser.III) I Department dated 06.11.2011 of the 1st respondent including consequential orders issued vide Proceedings Rc.No.A1/621/2000-II (39-III) dated 27.04.2013 of the 3rd respondent and set aside the same by holding the entire action/procedure adopted by the 1st and 3rd respondents for issuing the impugned orders as illegal and arbitrary. 2. It is the case of the petitioner that he was initially appointed as Grade-II Hostel Welfare Officer during 16.03.1978 and subsequently he was promoted as Grade-I HWO and retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation on 31.03.2010 while working at Social Welfare (Boys) Hostel at Shyampet Warangal District. 3. While so, the 1st respondent, Principal Secretary, Social Welfare Department, vide G.O. Rt. No.46, dated 03.02.1998 had issued orders for conducting special audit in respect of misappropriation of Government funds and financial irregularities in all Government Social Welfare Hostels of Warangal District for the period from 19911992 to 1993-1994. Based on the said orders, the 2nd respondent, Commissioner of Social Welfare, had deputed a special audit party for the purpose of auditing of accounts in the Social Welfare Hostels of Warangal District and they submitted a report to the 2nd respondent, who in turn communicated the same to the 3rd respondent, District Collector, Warangal, for taking suitable disciplinary action against the concerned Wardens/Matrons of the hostels as per the CCA Rules. 4. It is submitted that the 3rd respondent, being a disciplinary authority, had issued a charge memo vide Proceedings No.B1/621/2000-II(39)-III, dated 22.07.2000 pertaining to Social Welfare Boys Hostel (D) Parkal and another charge memo vide Proceedings No.B1/621/2000-II (20)-III, dated 22.07.2000 pertaining to the Social Welfare Boys Hostel (B) Zafargad to the petitioner and called for his explanation. While denying the charges against the petitioner, he submitted his explanation. Having not satisfied with the said explanation of the petitioner, the 3rd respondent, District Collector, vide Proceedings dated 30.01.2002, appointed the Revenue Divisional Officer, Warangal, as an Enquiry Officer and Assistant Social Welfare Officer (ASWO) concerned as the Presenting Officer under Rule 20 of the CCA Rules. After conducting a detailed enquiry into the matter, Enquiry Officer submitted his report vide Proceedings dated 26.10.2005 holding that the charges levelled against the petitioner are not proved in respect of both the hostels. 5. After conducting a detailed enquiry into the matter, Enquiry Officer submitted his report vide Proceedings dated 26.10.2005 holding that the charges levelled against the petitioner are not proved in respect of both the hostels. 5. It is further submitted that after receipt of the said enquiry report from the Enquiry Officer by the 3rd respondent, the 3rd respondent, District Collector, being disciplinary authority, instead of passing final orders on his own, had sent the enquiry report to the 1st respondent, Principal Secretary, for the purpose of further action in the matter and the 1st respondent, in turn, referred the matter to the Vigilance Commissioner, A.P. Hyderabad, who vide his letter dated 18.07.2006 had issued instructions to defer with the findings of the Enquiry Officer. Based on the said instructions, the 3rd respondent, District Collector, being disciplinary authority, vide his Memo dated 29.06.2009, had issued a disagreement notice to the petitioner calling for his explanation. Accordingly, the petitioner again submitted his explanation on 12.08.2009 with a request to drop further action in view of categorical findings given by the Enquiry Officer holding that the charges levelled against the petitioner are not proved. It is submitted that without proper appreciation of his explanation and the findings of the Enquiry Officer, at the instance of the instructions of the Vigilance Commissioner, the 1st respondent, Principal Secretary, had imposed the penalty of withholding of 10% pension permanently besides recovery of Rs.1,19,689/- and issued G.O. Rt. No.727, dated 16.11.2012 and thereafter, the 3rd respondent, District Collector, issued consequential Proceedings dated 27.04.2013 and the same was communicated to the petitioner by the 4th respondent, Deputy Director of Social Welfare, vide his letter dated 09.05.2013 that was received by the petitioner during the second week of June 2013. Challenging the said impugned G.O. Rt. No.727, dated 16.11.2012 and its consequential Proceedings dated 27.04.2013, the petitioner filed the present writ petition. 6. On behalf of all the respondents, respondent No.4 has filed the counter affidavit, inter alia, stating that on receipt of credible information that the Warden/Matrons of Social Welfare Hostels, Warangal district committed serious financial irregularities in the maintenance of Hostels/Institutions during the year, 1993-94, the Joint Director (Vigilance) Office of the Commissioner of Social Welfare Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad had conducted preliminary enquiry into the irregularities committed by the Wardens/Matrons and submitted his report. The enquiry report revealed that there was a misappropriation of Government funds to a tune of Rs.109.50 lakhs during the year, 1993-94 committed by the Deputy Director, Social Welfare, District Social Welfare officer, Assistant Social Welfare Officers and Wardens/Matrons along with some Treasury Officials. It is further submitted that in the preliminary enquiry it was found that as against 94 SW hostels, 32 SW hostels were involved in misappropriation and it was decided to initiate action against the Wardens/Matrons as per CCA Rules, in case they are involved in committing the alleged financial irregularities in the maintenance of the hostels/institutions basing on the Special Audit proposed for the financial years, 1991-92, 1992-93 and 1993-94. Based on the preliminary enquiry report of the Joint Director, (Vigilance) office of the Commissioner of Social Welfare Andhra Pradesh Hyderabad (32) Wardens/Matrons of SE hostels were placed under suspension in public interest as per the provisions of APCS (CCA) Rules, 1991 pending finalising of disciplinary proceedings against them. Definite charges were framed against 32 Wardens/Matrons and the ASWOs based on the report of Joint Director (vigilance). After receipt of the explanations from the charged officers, the Assistant Director (Legal Cell) office of the Commissioner of Social Welfare Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad was appointed as common enquiry officer under Rule, 24(1) of APCS (CCA) Rules vide Proceedings dated 04.06.1995 to conduct detailed enquiry. The Assistant Director (Legal Cell) conducted enquiry and submitted his report on 30.12.1995. After observing due procedure as contemplated in APCS (CCA) Rules, 1991, the District Collector, Warangal, who is the disciplinary authority in respect of Wardens/Matrons has concluded the disciplinary proceedings against the charged officers. Thereafter, the Commissioner, Social Welfare A.P. Hyderabad vide Proceedings dated 20.11.1997, has issued orders for reopening the disciplinary cases of (31) Wardens/Matrons of SW hostels in the Warangal district under rule (41) APCS (CCA) Rules, 1991. The Government Social Welfare Department in G.O. Rt. No.46, SW (SC Ser.2) Department, dated 03.02.1998 have issued orders for conducting of special audit on the misappropriation of Government funds and financial irregularities in Government social welfare hostels/other institutions of Warangal district for a period of three years from 1991-92 to 1993-94. The Government Social Welfare Department in G.O. Rt. No.46, SW (SC Ser.2) Department, dated 03.02.1998 have issued orders for conducting of special audit on the misappropriation of Government funds and financial irregularities in Government social welfare hostels/other institutions of Warangal district for a period of three years from 1991-92 to 1993-94. Accordingly, the Commissioner of Social Welfare, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad has deputed special audit party for audit purpose of all Government social welfare hostels/institutions in the district for the period from 1991-92 to 1993-94 and to submit report to the Commissioner, Social Welfare Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad. Accordingly, the Commissioner of Social Welfare, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad has deputed special audit party for audit purpose of all Government social welfare hostels/institutions in the district for the period from 1991-92 to 1993-94 and to submit report to the Commissioner, Social Welfare Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad. The Commissioner of Social Welfare Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad vide letter dated 21.02.2000 has communicated special audit reports in respect of (97) social welfare hostels/other institutions for the period of three years from 1991-92 to 1993-94 to the district Collector, Warangal for taking suitable disciplinary action against the defaulting Wardens/Matrons as per APCS (CCA) Rules, 1991 and to submit specific individual reports to the Commissioner of social Welfare Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad. Based on the special audit report communicated by the Commissioner of Social Welfare, A.P. Hyderabad the district Collector, Warangal vide proceedings dated 22.07.2000 has framed Article of charges against the petitioner towards misappropriation of Government funds and financial irregularities in maintenance of social welfare hostels for the period of 1991-92 to 1993-94. Thereafter, the District Collector, Warangal vide proceedings dated 30.01.2002 has appointed the Revenue Divisional Officer, Warangal as Enquiry Officer and Assistant Social Welfare Officer concerned as Presenting Officer in this case. Thereafter, the District Collector, Warangal vide proceedings dated 30.01.2002 has appointed the Revenue Divisional Officer, Warangal as Enquiry Officer and Assistant Social Welfare Officer concerned as Presenting Officer in this case. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Warangal vide his proceedings dated 26.10.2005 has submitted his enquiry reports for taking further action in the matter out of (4) charges for SW Boys hostel (D) Parkal and charges for SW boys hostel Zaffargadh framed against the applicant with regard to misappropriation of Government and financial irregularities in maintenance of SW hostels during the years 1991-92 to 1993-94 the Enquiry Officer has not held proved any of the charge against the charged officer and the findings of the Inquiry Authority on each charge are very brief without analysis of evidence and there is no assessment of evidence produced by the disciplinary authority and mainly relied upon the written statement of the charged officer. It is further submitted that as per the instructions/guidelines of the Secretary to Vigilance Commissioner, vide letter dated 06.11.2006 a disagreement note on the findings of the Enquiry Officer in respect of the petitioner has been communicated with instructions to submit his explanation within (15) days from the date of receipt of the District Collector’s Memo dated 29.06.2009 as to why suitable disciplinary action should not be taken against the petitioner for misappropriation of Government amount in maintenance of Social Welfare Boys Hostel Zaffargadh and Social Welfare Boys Hostel (D) Parkal during the years 1991-92 to 1993-94 for which, the petitioner submitted his explanation dated 12.08.2009. Having not convinced with the said explanation of the petitioner, the 3rd respondent vide Memos dated 09.08.2001 has issued show-cause notice to the petitioner calling for his explanation to show cause as to why a punishment of 10% cut in pension permanently besides recovery of misappropriated amount of Rs.1,19,689/-should not be imposed against him for the irregularities committed by him for which, the petitioner submitted his explanation on 31.11.2011. It is submitted that the Government, after careful examination of the matter, issued G.O. Rt. No.727, dated 16.11.2012 imposing the said penalty for the charges held proved with a request to the 3rd respondent to take further action. In pursuance of the said G.O. Rt. No.727, dated 16.11.2012, the 3rd respondent vide Proceedings dated 27.04.2013 had concluded the disciplinary proceedings. 7. No.727, dated 16.11.2012 imposing the said penalty for the charges held proved with a request to the 3rd respondent to take further action. In pursuance of the said G.O. Rt. No.727, dated 16.11.2012, the 3rd respondent vide Proceedings dated 27.04.2013 had concluded the disciplinary proceedings. 7. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that though the Enquiry Officer had categorically gave a report holding that the charges levelled against the petitioner are not proved, the 3rd respondent, being disciplinary authority, instead of taking an independent decision, forwarded the report to the 1st respondent, who in turn referred to the Vigilance Commissioner, who deferred/ disagreed with the findings of the Enquiry Officer. The disciplinary authority while disagreeing with the findings of the Enquiry Officer came to a different conclusion and no opportunity of personal hearing has been offered to the petitioner. In support of his contention, he placed reliance on the judgments rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Yoginath D. Bage Vs. State of Maharashtra, MANU/SC/0583/1999 and Punjab National Bank and others Vs. Kunj Behari Misra, MANU/SC/0531/1998. He further submitted that there is inordinate delay and laches in the disciplinary proceedings, since the alleged charges are pertaining to the year of 1991-92 to 1993-94 and whereas the proceedings are concluded in the year 2013 i.e., after 22 years, which causes prejudice to the petitioner. Eventually, he submitted that in similar set of facts and circumstances with the same issue pertaining to same department, for the same period 1991-92 to 1993-94 whose cases were allowed by the learned Tribunal in O.A. Nos.8851 of 2012 and batch and this Court in W.P. No.11821 of 2020 and 3513 of 2020 also allowed and therefore, he requested to pass similar order in the instant case also. 8. The learned counsel for the petitioner has also filed written submissions stating that the respondents sought time for about 25 times for filing of counter affidavit and filed counter affidavit on 16.02.2023. The main contention put forth by the petitioner as follows: i) the Vigilance Commissioner and the 1st respondent dictated the disciplinary authority as to how they should exercise their power and what punishment they should impose. ii) That the impugned G.O. Rt. No.727 dated 06.11.2012 issued by the 1st respondent and the 3rd respondent issued the Proceedings dated 27.04.2013 as per the dictation of the Vigilance Commissioner and the 1st respondent. ii) That the impugned G.O. Rt. No.727 dated 06.11.2012 issued by the 1st respondent and the 3rd respondent issued the Proceedings dated 27.04.2013 as per the dictation of the Vigilance Commissioner and the 1st respondent. iii) There is no rule that is envisaged for the Vigilance Commission under the provisions of TSCS (CC&A) Rules, 1991 since opinion if any tendered by the Vigilance Commission is only advisory in nature. iv) The 3rd respondent (Disciplinary Authority) did not apply his mind independently and did not take an independent decision and followed the dictation of the 1st respondent as well as the Vigilance Commissioner and therefore, the punishment orders are to be set aside. v) The 1st respondent and the Vigilance Commission have discharged the role of disciplinary authority contrary to statutory mandate of Rule 21 and that the order is an unreasoned order. vi) That there was an inordinate and unexplained delay in initiating and concluding the petitioner’s disciplinary proceedings . vii) That the delay would cause prejudice to the petitioner and the present case is squarely covered by the decisions in case of A.P. Vs. N.Radhakrishna reported in (1998) SCC 154 and in the case of M.V.Bijlani Vs. Union of India and others reported in (2006) 5 SCC 88 and the Hon’ble Supreme Court has also opined that protracted disciplinary proceedings would be much more than punishment, in the case of P.V. Mahadevan Vs. M.D. Tamilnadu Housing Board, reported in (2005) 6 SCC 636 . He also placed reliance on the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in W.P. No.15449 of 1999 dated 18.08.2001 reported in 2004(7) ALT 289 in Mubashir Hussain Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise-III, Hyderabad and others. SBI Vs. H.K. Dogra (Reported in 1995 (5) SLR 358), S.P. Agarwal Vs. Municipal Corporation Delhi, (Reported in 1997 (1) SLR 485 and State of S.P. Vs. Dr.Rahimuddin Ramal, (Reported in 1997 (3) SCC 505 ) and Anisminic Ltd. Vs. Foreign Compensation Commission, (Reported in 1969 (2) AC 147). viii) He would also submit that similarly situated colleagues/HWOs of Warangal district cases were considered in O.A. No.8700 of 2012 vide order dated 26.09.2014 and in O.A. No.8895 of 2012 dated 26.06.2016 wherein the impugned orders were set aside by the learned Tribunal. Foreign Compensation Commission, (Reported in 1969 (2) AC 147). viii) He would also submit that similarly situated colleagues/HWOs of Warangal district cases were considered in O.A. No.8700 of 2012 vide order dated 26.09.2014 and in O.A. No.8895 of 2012 dated 26.06.2016 wherein the impugned orders were set aside by the learned Tribunal. Since the case of the petitioner also falls in similar set of facts and circumstances and the issue is identical, the impugned orders are liable to be set aside. 9. On the other hand, the learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents reiterated the counter averments however, he does not dispute the eventual submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner that in similar set of facts and circumstances, the learned Tribunal in O.A. Nos.8851 of 2012 and batch and this Court in W.P. No.11821 of 2020 and 3513 of 2020 allowed the writ petitions on 06.01.2023 and 15.11.2022, respectively. 10. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for the respondents and perused the material made available on record. 11. It is not in dispute that the alleged charges are pertaining to the year of 1991-92 to 1993-94 and the Enquiry Officer had submitted his report holding that the charges levelled against the petitioner are not proved. The main grievance of the petitioner is that the 3rd respondent, being disciplinary authority, instead of taking an independent decision, forwarded the report to the 1st respondent, who in turn referred to the Vigilance Commissioner, who deferred/ disagreed with the findings of the Enquiry Officer. The disciplinary authority while disagreeing with the findings of the Enquiry Officer and coming to a different conclusion, ought to have given an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner. 12. In the case of Yoginath one supra, the Hon’ble Apex Court held at para 56 as under: “56. In the instant case, we have scrutinised the reasons of the Disciplinary Committee and have found that it had taken its final decision without giving an opportunity of hearing to the appellant at the stage at which it proposed to differ with the findings of the Enquiry Officer…..” 13. In the case of Punjab National Bank two supra, the Hon’ble Apex Court held at para 18 as under: “18. At this stage it will be appropriate to refer to the case of State of Assam and Anr. Vs. In the case of Punjab National Bank two supra, the Hon’ble Apex Court held at para 18 as under: “18. At this stage it will be appropriate to refer to the case of State of Assam and Anr. Vs. Bimal Kumar Pandit ([1964] 2 SCR 1] decided by a Constitution Bench of this Court. A question arose regarding the contents of the second show cause notice when the Government accepts, rejects or partly accepts or partly rejects the findings of the Enquiry Officer. Even though that case relates to Article 311 (2) before its deletion by the 42nd Amendment, the principle laid down therein, at page 10 of the report, when read alone with the decision of this Court in Karunakar's case will clearly apply here. The Court observed at Page 10 as follows:- "We ought, however, to add that if the dismissing authority differs from the findings recorded in the enquiry report, it is necessary that its provisional conclusions in that behalf should be specified in the second notice. It may be that the report makes findings in favour of the delinquent officer, but the dismissing authority disagrees with the said findings and proceeds to issue the notice under Article 311 (2). In such a case, it would obviously be necessary that the dismissing authority should expressly state that it differs from the findings recorded in the enquiry report and then indicate the nature of the action proposed to be taken against the delinquent officer. Without such an express statement in the notice, it would be impossible to issue the notice at all. There may also be cases in which the enquiry report may make findings in favour of the delinquent officer on some issues and against him on some other issues. That is precisely what has happened in the present case. If the dismissing authority accepts all the said findings in their entirety, it is another matter: but if the dismissing authority accepts the findings recorded against the delinquent officer and differs from some or all of those recorded in his favour and proceeds to specify the nature of the action proposed to be taken on it own conclusions, it would be necessary that the said conclusions should be briefly indicated in the notice. In this category of case, the action proposed to be taken could be based not only on the findings recorded against the delinquent officer in the enquiry report, but also on the view of the dismissing authority that the other charges not held proved by the enquiring officer, are according to the dismissing authority, proved. In order to give the delinquent officer a reasonable opportunity to show cause under Article 311 (2), it is essential that the conclusions provisionally reached by the dismissing authority must, in such cases, be specified in the notice. But whether the dismissing authority purports to proceed to issue the notice against the delinquent officer after accepting the enquiry report in its entirety, it cannot be said that it is essential that the dismissing authority must say that it has so accepted the report. As we have already indicated, it is desirable that even in such cases a statement to that effect should be made. But we do not think that the words used in Article 311 (2) justify the view that the failure to make such a statement amounts to contravention of Article 311 (2). In dealing with this point, we must bear in mind the fact that a copy of the enquiry report had been enclosed with the notice, and so, reading the notice in common sense manner, the respondent could not have found any difficulty in realising that the action proposed to be taken against him proceeded on the basis that the appellants had accepted the conclusions of the enquiring officer in the entirety." 14. From the above two judgments of the Hon’ble Apex Court, it is clear that the respondents ought to have given an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner at the stage at which it proposed to differ/disagreement with the findings of the Enquiry Officer. Further, it would be necessary that the disciplinary authority should expressly state that it differs/ disagree from the findings recorded in the enquiry report and then indicate the nature of the action proposed to be taken on its own conclusions and thereby it would be necessary that the said conclusions should be briefly indicated in the notice. In the instant case, no such procedure has been adopted by the respondents duly issuing such notice. 15. In the instant case, no such procedure has been adopted by the respondents duly issuing such notice. 15. As could be seen from the order 15.07.2014 passed in O.A. No.8851 of 2012 and batch by the Tribunal, it is noticed that the learned Tribunal had considered the similar set of facts and circumstances of the case and after taking into consideration the various judicial pronouncements, the Tribunal had set aside the impugned orders therein and allowed the O.As. Further, this Court also considered the similar set of facts and circumstances of the case in W.P. No.11821 of 2020 and 3513 of 2020 and allowed the writ petitions. 16. As regards the delay, the Tribunal while dealing with O.A. No.8700 of 2012 considered the issue of delay and held at paras 16 and 17 as under: “16. In case between the STATE OF AP V. N.RADHAKRISHNA reported in (1998) SCC 154, the Hon’ble Supreme Court deprecated the practice of delay in disciplinary proceedings and came to the conclusion that the delay causes prejudice to the charged officer unless he is to be blamed for the delay. Para 19 is relevant, which reads as follows: “It is not possible to lay down any predetermined principles applicable to all cases and in all situations where there is delay in concluding the disciplinary proceedings. Whether on that ground the disciplinary proceedings are to be terminated each case has to be examined on the facts and circumstances in that case the essence of the matter is that the court has to take into consideration all relevant factors and to balance and weight them to determine if it is in the interest of clean and honest administration that the disciplinary proceedings should be allowed to terminate after delay particularly when delay is abnormal and there is no explanation for the delay. The delinquent employee has a right that disciplinary proceedings against him are concluded expeditiously and he s not made to undergo mental agony and also monetary loss when these are unnecessarily prolonged without any fault on his part in delaying the proceedings. In considering whether delay has vitiated the disciplinary proceedings the Court has to consider the nature of charge, its complexity and on what account the delay has occurred. if the delay is unexplained prejudice to the delinquent employee is writ large on the face of it. In considering whether delay has vitiated the disciplinary proceedings the Court has to consider the nature of charge, its complexity and on what account the delay has occurred. if the delay is unexplained prejudice to the delinquent employee is writ large on the face of it. It could also be seen as to how much disciplinary authority is serious in pursuing the charges against its employee. It is the basic principle of administrative justice that an officer entrusted with a particular job has to perform his duties honestly, efficiently and in accordance with the rules. If he deviates from this path he is to suffer a penalty prescribed. Normally, disciplinary proceedings should be allowed to take its course as per relevant rules but then delay defeats justice. Delay causes prejudice to the charged officer unless it can be shown that he is to or when there is proper explanation for the delay in conducting the disciplinary proceedings. Ultimately, the court is to balance these two diverse considerations.” 17. Practically, the same view was also taken in the case of M.V.BIJLANI V. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS reported in (2006) 5 SCC 88 . The Hon’ble Supreme Court also has stated that protracted disciplinary proceedings would be much more than the punishment. In the case of P.V.MAHADEVAN V. M.D.TAMILNADU HOUSING BOARD, reported in (2005) 6 SCC 636 , it has been held as follows: “Under the circumstances, we are of the opinion that allowing the respondent to proceed further with the departmental proceedings at this distance of time will be very prejudicial to the appellant. Keeping a higher government official under charges of corruption and disputed integrity would cause unbearable mental agony and distress to the officer concerned. The protracted disciplinary enquiry against a government employee should, therefore, be avoided not only in the interests of the government employee but in public interest and also in the interests of inspiring confidence in the minds of the government employees. At this stage, it is necessary to draw the curtain and to put an end to the enquiry. The appellant had already suffered enough and more on account of the disciplinary proceedings. As a matter of fact, the mental agony and sufferings of the appellant due to the protracted disciplinary proceedings would be much more than the punishment. At this stage, it is necessary to draw the curtain and to put an end to the enquiry. The appellant had already suffered enough and more on account of the disciplinary proceedings. As a matter of fact, the mental agony and sufferings of the appellant due to the protracted disciplinary proceedings would be much more than the punishment. For the mistakes committed by the department in the procedure for initiating the disciplinary proceedings, the appellant should not be made to suffer.” 17. That apart upon a perusal of the entire submissions and the material filed by the petitioner, it is observed that the alleged misappropriation of Government funds in maintenance of Social Welfare hostels pertains to the period from 1991-92 to 1993-94 and that the show-cause notice together with enquiry report and the disagreement note was sent to the petitioner on 09.12.2011. In the disagreement note, there is no discussion on the findings of the Enquiry Officer i.e., Revenue Divisional Officer, Warngal. Though the Enquiry Officer has considered the explanation offered by the petitioner observing none of the charges have been proved as such, it appears that the disagreement note was prepared mechanically without considering the explanation of the petitioner and no cogent reasons were given before initiating further enquiry. It is the categorical submission of the petitioner that he worked at SWBH (D) Parkal for four months i.e. from 01.09.1991 to 03.01.1992 but for the entire amount of three years i.e. 1991-92 to 1993-94 has been shown against the petitioner as misappropriated amount. For SWBH Zaffargadh all the amount of Rs.55,554/- has been shown as misappropriated amount without considering the explanation of the petitioner and also the findings of the Enquiry Officer. 18. For SWBH Zaffargadh all the amount of Rs.55,554/- has been shown as misappropriated amount without considering the explanation of the petitioner and also the findings of the Enquiry Officer. 18. Without proper appreciation of the explanation of the petitioner, the 3rd respondent, District Collector passed the following order: “The Government, after careful examination of the matter, in the G.O. 17th cited above have ordered to impose the penalty of withholding of 10% pension permanently, besides recovery of Rs.1,19,689/-(Rupees one lakh nineteen thousands six hundred and eighty nine only) against Sri Ch.Srinivas Reddy, Ex-Warden SW Boys Hostel (D) Parkal & SW Boys Hostel Zaffargadh now retired as HWO Gr.I, SW Boys Hostel Shyampet for the irregularities committed in maintenance of the SW Boys Hostel Zaffargadh and SW Boys Hostel (D) Parkal during the years 1991-92 to 1993-94 for the charges held proved, under Rule 9 of the A.P. Revised Pension Rules, 1980.” 19. As regards the submissions made by the petitioner that though the 3rd respondent being the disciplinary authority without taking any action independently on the findings of the Enquiry Officer simply under the order of the 1st respondent as well as under the dictation of the Vigilance Commissioner, forwarded the report of the Enquiry Officer to the 1st respondent for further action and that Vigilance Commissioner prepared the disagreement note and thereby concluding the proceedings by the respondents No.1 and 3, in this regard, the Division Bench of this Court in the case of D.Ramesh Sinha Vs. Cadre Authority For Key Personnel of Co-Op. Central Banks/Apex Bank, 2002(1) SLR 93 held at para 8 as under: “8. Having regard to the aforementioned notings in the records, we have no doubt whatsoever that the impugned orders of suspension have been passed pursuant to and in furtherance of the directions issued by the State Government. Power to initiate disciplinary proceedings against an employee or place him under suspension emanates from a statute. While exercising such statutory power, the competent authority, must therefore, apply its mind independently as to whether the conditions precedent for excercising such power exist. It is now trite that if a statutory authority acts at the behest of some other authority, however high he may be, who has no statutory role to play in the matter, then such action/or any order passed by him, would be a nonest in the eye of law. It is now trite that if a statutory authority acts at the behest of some other authority, however high he may be, who has no statutory role to play in the matter, then such action/or any order passed by him, would be a nonest in the eye of law. It is also well settled that while passing an order, if the statutory authority ignores the relevant factors or takes into considerations, factors not germane for the passing of the order, then such action or the order flowing from such action, would be vitiated in law. Equally well settled is the principle that the statutory authority while exercising statutory powers, must pose correct questions so as to apply correct legal principles and arrive at correct conclusions basing on the actual and exact state of affairs, and if he fails to do so, the same would amount to misdirection in law. Although decisions on this score are galore, suffice it to refer to the decision of the apex Court in COMMR. OF POLIC. V. GORDHANDAS, and the decision of the Court of Appeal, Civil Division, in Secretary of State v. Tameside, (1976) 3 All England Reporter 665.” 20. Further, in the case of SATYENDRA CHANDRA JAIN Vs. PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK AND OTHERS, (1997) 11 Supreme Court Cases 444 at paras 4 and 5 held as under: “4. In the present case the disciplinary authority had passed the order for removal from service of the appellant on 16-11-1988, i.e., at a time when the said directive dated 21-7-1984 was operative. It must, therefore, be presumed that in passing the said order, the disciplinary authority was acting in accordance with the said directive and has imposed the punishment of removal from service in accordance with the recommendation made by the Chief Vigilance Officer. 5. having regard to the decision in Nagaraj Shivarao Karjagi (1991) 3 SCC 219 : 1991 SCC (L&S) 965 : (1992) 19 ATC 639) and the fact that the appellant has already attained the age of superannuation we are of the view that the disciplinary authority should reconsider the matter regarding the penalty to be imposed on the appellant in the light of the misconduct that has been found established against him. The disciplinary authority will take this decision on the basis that the recommendation made by the Chief Vigilance Officer is not binding. The disciplinary authority will take this decision on the basis that the recommendation made by the Chief Vigilance Officer is not binding. In case the disciplinary authority chooses to impose a lesser punishment than the punishment of removal from service, the order dated 16-11-1988 imposing the penalty of removal from service will stand modified accordingly. The disciplinary authority shall consider the matter and take a decision in this regard within three months. The appeal is disposed of accordingly. No costs.” 21. In view of the above judicial pronouncements, if any order is passed at the instance of the higher authority, without application of independent mind by the disciplinary authority, itself is illegal and the same is unsustainable. Moreover, there was an inordinate delay for concluding the disciplinary proceedings and this Court had already considered the similar set of facts and circumstances in W.P. No.11821 of 2020 and 3513 of 2020 and allowed these writ petitions. 22. In view of the above, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions made by the learned counsel on either side, this writ petition is allowed by setting aside the G.O. Rt. No.727, dated 16.11.2012 and its consequential Proceedings dated 27.04.2013. Consequently, the respondents are directed to take necessary action for the release of all retirement benefits, pending if any, including full pension to the petitioner in accordance with law, within a period of (3) Three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 23. Accordingly, this Writ Petition (TR) is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand closed.