ORDER : 1. The instant writ petition is filed to grant the following relief: “ .. to issue a writ, order or direction more in the nature of Mandamus declaring the impugned C.No.43/A6-1/OE/2008, D.O.No.1133/2010, dated 24.05.2010 issued by the Superintendent of Police, Nalgonda and the orders passed in appeal in R.O.No.47/2016, Rc.No.123/D1-2/HR/2017, dated 27.01.2017 issued by the 3rd respondent, communicated to the petitioners in C.No.43/A6/1/Appeal-10-11/2010-16, D.O.No.252/2017 dated 08.02.2017 by the 1st respondent, as being illegal, arbitrary, unjust, violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and consequently, release the increment withheld from the petitioners with all consequential benefits including treating the suspension period as on duty.” 2. The brief facts of the case are that petitioners, who are Armed Assistant Sub-Inspectors, were placed under suspension by the 1st respondent vide proceedings dated 01.08.2008 for neglecting duty and misconduct in letting off Under Trial Prisoners viz., Shaik Nagur Vali and Shaik Hussain on 01.08.2008 in the limits of Chityal Police Station, while escorting them from Central Jail, Rajahmundri to Judicial Magistrate of First Class Court, Ramannapet and later, giving a false complaint at Chityal P.S. and thereby exhibiting lack of integrity and conduct unbecoming of a Government servant in violation of Rule 3 of Andhra Pradesh Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1964 (for short ‘Rules, 1964’). Subsequently, a charge was framed against the petitioners on 03.10.2008 and petitioners have filed reply to the said charge memo and consequently, the Sub-Divisional Police Officer, Bhongir was appointed as Inquiry Officer to conduct inquiry and by following due procedure, the Sub-Divisional Police Officer, vide his Minutes in C.No.4/OE/SDPO-B/2008, dated 27.03.2010 holding that the charge against the petitioners was proved, which is a gross negligence and violation of Rule 3 of the Rules, 1964 and the 1st respondent by enclosing a copy of the report of Inquiry Officer, issued Memo No.43/A6-1/OE/2008, dated 08.04.2010 directing the petitioners to submit their explanations thereon. 3. The petitioners submitted their explanations stating that they were not provided with weapons and a proper vehicle, and as a result, despite exercising due diligence, they were unable to prevent the escape of the under trial prisoners and requested to exonerate them from the charges by dropping the disciplinary proceedings initiated against them. 3. The petitioners submitted their explanations stating that they were not provided with weapons and a proper vehicle, and as a result, despite exercising due diligence, they were unable to prevent the escape of the under trial prisoners and requested to exonerate them from the charges by dropping the disciplinary proceedings initiated against them. The 1st respondent, after perusing the enquiry report and the explanation offered by the petitioners, has imposed punishment of PPI for two years with effect on future increments and pension, for the misconduct and the suspension period from 03.08.2008 to 19.02.2009 is directed to be treated as ‘not on duty’. 4. Subsequently, petitioners have challenged the orders passed by the 1st respondent vide C.No.43/A6-1/OE/2008, D.O.No.1133/2010 dated 24.05.2010 in an appeal before the 4th respondent herein vide R.O.No.47/2016 (Rc.No.123/D1-2/ HR/2017) dated 27.01.2017 and the 4th respondent having perused the inquiry report and also the orders passed by the 1st respondent after following due procedure has confirmed the orders passed by the 1st respondent and challenging the said orders passed by the 1st respondent as confirmed in the appeal by the 4th respondent, petitioners filed the instant writ petition. 5. Heard Mr. A. Tirupathi Goud, learned counsel for petitioners and the learned Assistant Government Pleader representing the learned Government Pleader for Services (Home) appearing for respondents. 6. The main challenge in this writ petition is that the Enquiry Officer has not examined the reply filed by the petitioners in proper perspective and that the 1st respondent without application of his independent mind has imposed the punishment of PPI for two years with effect on future increments and pension, which is highly excessive and arbitrary and the 4th respondent-appellate authority has dismissed the Appeal vide R.O.No.47/2016 (Rc.No.123/D1-2/HR/2017), dated 27.01.2017 mechanically without any proper reasoning. 7. It is the contention of the petitioners that the 1st respondent failed to appreciate the fact that the charged officers were unable to prevent the escape of the under trial prisoners, as they were not provided with weapons or a vehicle and that the 1st and 4th respondents without properly appreciating the facts, only basing on the report of the Inquiry Officer, had imposed the punishment of PPI for two years with effect on future increments and pension, and treated their suspension period from 03.08.2008 to 19.02.2009 as ‘not on duty’ and that the punishment awarded is excessive in nature. 8. 8. Per contra, learned Assistant Government Pleader representing learned Government Pleader for Services (Home) submitted that the petitioners have not taken due care in performing their duties and they have derelicted their duties, which resulted in the escape of dangerous dacoit-prisoners and that duty of the charged officers should have performed with utmost care and caution and the charged officers have not taken proper care, as such, the 1st respondent had followed due procedure of law and imposed punishment basing on the enquiry report holding that the charged officers have committed gross negligence and dereliction of duties under Rule 3 of the Rules, 1964. The learned Assistant Government Pleader further submitted that the appeal was filed after a lapse of seven years, as the order of punishment was passed on 25.04.2010 and the appeal was filed only in the year 2017 and now, after lapse of much time, the present writ petition has been filed and the same is devoid of merits and petitioners have not made out any case so as to grant any relief, much less the punishment imposed is not excessive and on par with the charge memos issued to them and therefore, interference of this Court, in respect of the grave misconduct committed by the petitioners, is not warranted and the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. 9. This Court has gone into the material placed on record and the orders passed by the 1st respondent in C.No.43/A6-1/OE/2008, D.O.No.1133/2010 dated 24.05.2010 and also the enquiry report of the Sub-Divisional Police Officer, Bhongir, along with the order, dated 27.01.2017 passed by the 4th respondent in the appeal filed by the petitioners. 9. This Court has gone into the material placed on record and the orders passed by the 1st respondent in C.No.43/A6-1/OE/2008, D.O.No.1133/2010 dated 24.05.2010 and also the enquiry report of the Sub-Divisional Police Officer, Bhongir, along with the order, dated 27.01.2017 passed by the 4th respondent in the appeal filed by the petitioners. As seen from the charges levelled against the petitioners, the enquiry was conducted by giving proper opportunity to the petitioners by following the Principles of Natural Justice and also due procedure contemplated under the Rules, 1964 and the conclusion arrived by the Inquiry Officer that the petitioners guilty of misconduct in violation of Rule 3 of the Rules, 1964 and the disciplinary authority is the sole judge of the facts and where the appeal is presented the Appellate authority has co-extensive power to re-appreciate evidence or nature of punishment and the appellate authority has passed the order by giving cogent reasons and this Court without any hesitation holds that the 1st respondent was justified in holding out that the charged officers have committed misconduct of their duties in contravention to Rule 3 of the Rules, 1964 and that the charged officers have not acted with due diligence and care, thereby the UT prisoners, who are dangerous dacoits, escaped from the custody and that the adequacy of evidence or reliability of evidence cannot be canvassed before this Hon’ble Court. 10. After going through the rival submissions of either sides, this Court having held that the orders passed by the 1st respondent is justified and proper and the charged officers have committed misconduct in violation of Rule 3 of the Rules, 1964 and as there were no other disciplinary proceedings initiated against the petitioners either prior to the issuance of the impugned charge memo or subsequent to the orders passed by the 1st respondent during the course of their employment. 11. The only question that falls for consideration before this Court is whether the punishment imposed of PPI for two years with effect on future increments and pension, is excessive and whether the same is proportionate to the misconduct on the part of the charged officers ? 12. 11. The only question that falls for consideration before this Court is whether the punishment imposed of PPI for two years with effect on future increments and pension, is excessive and whether the same is proportionate to the misconduct on the part of the charged officers ? 12. A catena of the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and this Hon’ble Court held that if the punishment imposed is too disproportionate to the gravity of the misconduct proved and it shocks the judicial conscience, the penalties/punishment imposed can be interfered with. This principle has been reiterated right from B.C. Chaturvedi v. Union of India, (1995) 6 SCC 749 and recent judgment in General Manager Personnel, Syndicate Bank and Others vs. B.S.N. Prasad , (2025) 3 SCC 601 and other similar judgments. In the instant case taking into account of the charges and also the fact that the petitioners are not involved in other disciplinary charges throughout their entire length of service, the punishment imposed i.e., punishment of PPI for two years with effect on future increments and pension, is found to be excessive and needs modification to a lesser punishment. Normally this Court would have directed the disciplinary authority to modify the punishment to a lesser punishment from the one imposed by it, but due to the pendency of the matter for a long time and also in view of the fact that the charged officers retired long back and as such, this Court deems it proper to modify the punishment of PPI punishment with two years with effect on future punishment and pension to punishment to that of PPI punishment with two years without any cumulative effect and without any effect on Pension, but without any monetary benefits . In view of the fact that the authorities have revoked the suspension of the petitioners and imposed punishment, the suspension period from 03.08.2008 to 19.02.2009 as not on duty is also kept intact, but however such period may be counted for pension if not counted. 13. With the aforesaid observations, this Writ Petition is partly allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. 14. Miscellaneous applications, pending if any, shall stand closed.