ORDER : 1. This Writ Petition is filed questioning the order dated 08.06.2009 passed by the 3 rd respondent, who confirmed the order dated 16.03.2009 passed by the 2nd respondent as well as the order dated 22.09.2008 and Corrigendum dated 07.11.2008 passed by the 1 st respondent. 2. Heard Sri Sundareshan, learned counsel representing Sri P. Govind Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri A.K. Jaya Prakash Rao, learned Standing counsel appearing for the respondents. 3. Brief facts of the case are as follows :- (a) The petitioner was initially appointed as a Computer Operator in the respondent Corporation on 11.08.1997 and thereafter, he was posted at the Accounts Division of Hotel Samrat, New Delhi and worked till May, 2001. On 15.05.2001, he was transferred and posted at ITDC Duty Free Shop, Hyderabad Airport, Hyderabad, on permanent basis. The petitioner discharged his duties to the satisfaction of his superiors at Hotel Samrat and there was no complaint whatsoever against him. (b) While so, on 05.04.2006, the Prohibition and Excise Police, Balanagar, registered a case in Crime No.4/06-07 for the offence punishable under Section 8 (b) (ii) r/w Rule IV and VII of A.P. Prohibition Act , 1955 against A-1 to A-7, wherein the petitioner was arrayed as A-5. In view of the registration of the said case, the 1st respondent placed the petitioner under suspension by order, dated 08.04.2006. Questioning the said suspension order, the petitioner filed W.P.No.17857 of 2006 and this Court suspended the order, dated 08.04.2006 vide W.P.M.P.No.22397 of 2006 in W.P.No.17857 of 2006 dated 06.02.2007, and thereafter, the petitioner was reinstated into service. (c) After completion of the investigation, the Excise authorities filed a charge-sheet before the learned Special Judicial First Class Magistrate for Prohibition and Excise Cases, Ranga Reddy District, only against A-1 to A-5, and the names of A-6 and A-7 were deleted. Questioning the said action, the petitioner filed W.P.No.18067 of 2007 before this Court. This Court by order, dated 19.04.2008, granted stay of all further proceedings in C.C.No.174 of 2007. (d) Thereafter, the 1 st respondent issued Memorandum to the petitioner on 27.02.2007 and ordered for an enquiry. After completion of the enquiry, the Presenting Officer filed his written brief on 27.03.2008, to which the petitioner filed his reply on 17.04.2008. The Enquiry Officer submitted his report on 25.05.2008, to which the petitioner submitted his explanation on 28.07.2008. (d) Thereafter, the 1 st respondent issued Memorandum to the petitioner on 27.02.2007 and ordered for an enquiry. After completion of the enquiry, the Presenting Officer filed his written brief on 27.03.2008, to which the petitioner filed his reply on 17.04.2008. The Enquiry Officer submitted his report on 25.05.2008, to which the petitioner submitted his explanation on 28.07.2008. Not satisfied with the explanation submitted by the petitioner, the 1 st respondent passed order, dated 22.09.2008, imposing the penalty of stoppage of two annual grade increments with cumulative effect along with recovery of an amount of Rs.38,226/- towards loss to the Corporation and Rs.25,000/- towards Customs Duty and Penalty. Thereafter, the 1 st respondent issued a Corrigendum on 07.11.2008 in respect of the penalty mentioned at Para 2 page 2 of order, dated 22.09.2008. (e) Aggrieved by the said order and Corrigendum, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the 2 nd respondent, and the same was dismissed by order, dated 16.03.2009. Thereafter, the petitioner also preferred a revision before the 3 rd respondent and the same was also dismissed on 08.06.2009. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner filed the present writ petition. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the Enquiry Officer, after conducting an elaborate enquiry, held that the Management failed to establish both the charges levelled against the petitioner. Though the Enquiry Officer exonerated the petitioner from both the charges, however held that he is partially responsible for taking the goods outside the D.F.S. Shop at Hyderabad Airport. The petitioner submitted a detailed explanation to the show cause notice on 28.07.2008. The 1st respondent passed order, dated 22.09.2008, as well as Corrigendum dated 07.11.2008, without adverting to the contents of the petitioner’s explanation. Therefore, the orders passed by the 1 st respondent, as confirmed by respondents 2 and 3, are illegal and arbitrary. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner further submits that no charge was framed against the petitioner for recovery of the amount of Rs.38,226/- and Rs.25,000/- and no enquiry was conducted. Therefore, the penalty of recovery of the said amount is grossly illegal and arbitrary. Further, the penalty of stoppage of two annual increments with cumulative effect is totally disproportionate to the charges levelled against the petitioner. 6. Therefore, the penalty of recovery of the said amount is grossly illegal and arbitrary. Further, the penalty of stoppage of two annual increments with cumulative effect is totally disproportionate to the charges levelled against the petitioner. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner further submits that respondent Nos.2 and 3 without considering the contentions advanced by the petitioner erroneously confirmed the orders passed by the 1st respondent. Therefore, appropriate orders be passed in the writ petition by setting aside the impugned orders and allow the writ petition. 7. The respondents filed a counter affidavit stating as follows :- (a) The petitioner has joined in the respondent Corporation as a Computer Operator in New Delhi and subsequently transferred to Hyderabad to work in Duty Free Shop of the respondent Corporation situated at Rajiv Gandhi International Airport, Begumpet, Hyderabad. The duty free shop of the respondent is established to sell foreign goods and foreign liquor for the foreigners, who are travelling through Hyderabad. In duty free shop of Hyderabad, there was hardly any work of the computer. The petitioner was entrusted additional duties of attending to counter sales in various shifts. At the time of reporting to the duty, the petitioner has to verify the stock position and handover the same to others while he is reliving from his duties after completion of his shift. (b) On 05.04.2006, at about 09.45 p.m., in front of the Begumpet ICICI Bank, one Mr.Srikanth (Trainee Sales Assistant), Mr.Rama Swamy (Daily Casual Worker) and Mr.Md.Ghouse (Auto Driver) were red-handedly caught hold by the Prohibition and Excise Inspector, Balanagar, when they were unauthorisedly in possession of 48 liquor bottles of various brands. On interrogation, the said persons disclosed that they have collected liquor bottles of various brands from the petitioner herein and Mr.G.Pavan, a Trainee Sales Assistant of the respondent Corporation. On the basis of the information given by the above said persons, the Prohibition and Excise Officials caught hold the petitioner and Mr.G.Pavan at Begumpet Fly over bridge in front of M/s.Bottles and Chimney Restaurant and Bar and searched the gunny bag, which is in possession of the petitioner. At that time, the Excise Officials found 24 tins of Tiger Beer each 330ml and Johny Walker Gold Labeled Whisky of 750 ml with the petitioner and the petitioner was caught red handed with such material. At that time, the Excise Officials found 24 tins of Tiger Beer each 330ml and Johny Walker Gold Labeled Whisky of 750 ml with the petitioner and the petitioner was caught red handed with such material. (c) The petitioner, in order to save his skin, falsely implicated one Mr.Venkata Ramana, Sales Supervisor and Ms.Kala Dacha, Manager, Duty Free Shop. The Excise Officials of Balanagar registered Cr.No. 4973/2006/CPE/G1, dated 25.04.2006, against the petitioner and others. (d) Mr.T.Srikanth and Mr.G.Pavan, who were co-accused in the above said case, were removed from service, since they were only Trainee Sales Assistants and one Mr.Rama Swamy, another co-accused, daily wages scavenger, was also removed from the service of the respondent Corporation. (e) After registering the case by the Excise Officials, the Vigilance Officials of the respondent Corporation made an enquiry and found that Ms.Kala Dacha, Manager, on duty, as established from circumstantial and oral evidence, is not found directly or indirectly connected with the said offence of stealing of liquor bottles from Duty Free Shop and selling in the open market. The allegations made by the petitioner has not been established and that the petitioner himself in his cross-examination before the Vigilance Officials deposed that he never made any statement in respect of Ms.Kala Dacha Manager, and Mr. Venkat Ramana, Sales Supervisor, Duty Free Shop, as such, no action was initiated against them. (f) The petitioner was in-charge of the stock in the duty free shop at the time of the incident and the keys of the godown were also with the petitioner and he has accepted the same in the enquiry. (g) The Excise officials, after completion of the investigation, filed charge sheet and found that though the names of Mr. Venkat Ramana, (A-6) and Ms. Kala Dacha, (A-7) were included as per the statement of the petitioner, at the time of registering the case, but in the course of investigation, no sufficient evidence was found/established against A-6 and A-7 to charge them for unauthorized transport and illegal possession of foreign liquor and therefore, their names were deleted from the charge-sheet. (h) Since the act of the petitioner is grave and serious in nature, the respondent issued a charge sheet to the petitioner vide charge sheet No. 145-C/HR/DISC/ITDC/06, dated 27.02.2007 and requested the petitioner to submit his explanation for the charges levelled against him. (h) Since the act of the petitioner is grave and serious in nature, the respondent issued a charge sheet to the petitioner vide charge sheet No. 145-C/HR/DISC/ITDC/06, dated 27.02.2007 and requested the petitioner to submit his explanation for the charges levelled against him. The petitioner in his explanation has simply denied the charges levelled against him. The explanation submitted by the petitioner is not satisfactory and the respondent Corporation has decided to conduct an enquiry into the charges levelled against the petitioner. Accordingly, the respondent appointed one Mr.A.M.Tewari, as an Enquiry Officer and Mr.Ashok Lamba, as a Presenting Officer to conduct the departmental enquiry against the petitioner. The petitioner has not filed any valid document to prove his innocence against the charges levelled against him. The petitioner himself admitted in the enquiry that the keys of the godown were in his custody at the time of the incident i.e. 05.04.2006. (i) After completion of the enquiry, the Enquiry Officer submitted his report stating that the charges levelled against the petitioner in Article I is partially proved and the charges levelled against the petitioner in Article II are not proved and concluded his findings as follows: "It cannot happened without express or implied consent of the person, who was holding the keys of DFS shop. Therefore the CO is considered partially responsible that on 05.04.06 without help of other staff he committed breach of trust and permitted DFS liquor to go outside of DFS Shop. Therefore, the only charge Article 1 is considered partially proved rest of the charges are not proved. It is submitted though the charges levelled against the petitioner were partially proved but the petitioner he himself admitted in the enquiry that the keys of the DFS were with him on the date of incident i.e., 05.04.2006.It is submitted though the petitioner admitted his negligence on his duty, and the respondent has lost confidence on the dedication of the work, and on the duty of the petitioner, but the respondent has taken a sympathetic view on the petitioner and his employment, considering all aspects like past record of the petitioner, present unemployment conditions in society, social status of the petitioner in the society the respondent has imposed a minor punishment to the petitioner, i.e., STOPAGE OF TWO INCREMENTS WITH CUMULATIVE EFFECT along with the recovery of Rs. 38,226/-. 38,226/-. The amount of loss caused to the corporation to the petitioner because of his negligence on duty, further an amount of Rs.25000/- the temporary penalty presently imposed by the customs and Excise authorities and further penalty if any which is to be imposed by the Customs and Excise Officials depending up on their decision.” 8. The petitioner was given copy of the inquiry report dated 25.05.2008, to which the petitioner submitted his explanation on 28.07.2008. Not satisfied with the explanation submitted by the petitioner, the 1st respondent imposed the minor penalty against the petitioner and the same was also confirmed by respondent Nos.2 and 3. Challenging the order passed by the 3 rd respondent, the petitioner filed the present writ petition. 9. Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents submits that the contention of the petitioner that the Inquiry Authority has exonerated the petitioner completely from the charges levelled against him is false. The Inquiry Authority has not exonerated the petitioner and held that the petitioner is partially responsible for charge contained in Article 1. The Inquiry Authority has partially proved the charge leveled against the petitioner on the basis of documents and witnesses in the disciplinary case and therefore, the same is legally sustainable. 10. Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents submits that it is false to state that no charge was framed against the petitioner for recovery of the amount. A perusal of the major penalty charge-sheet No.145/HR/DISC/ITDC/06, dated 27.02.07, discloses the description of stolen goods by the petitioner along with quantity. Therefore, penalty of recovery of loss has been imposed as per the value of the items stolen by the petitioner, as the same was duly proved in the inquiry report. Therefore, the imposition of penalty of recovery of the amount by the 1 st respondent vide Order dated 22.09.2008 is legal and valid. The said incident was happened when the keys of the godown were in the custody of the petitioner and the petitioner alone is responsible. Therefore, the 1st respondent rightly passed the order dated 22.09.2009 and Corrigendum dated 07.11.2008 and the same was also confirmed by respondent Nos.2 and 3. Therefore, the writ petition is devoid of merits and the same is liable to be dismissed. 11. Therefore, the 1st respondent rightly passed the order dated 22.09.2009 and Corrigendum dated 07.11.2008 and the same was also confirmed by respondent Nos.2 and 3. Therefore, the writ petition is devoid of merits and the same is liable to be dismissed. 11. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner filed a reply stating that no charge is framed against the petitioner with regard to the financial loss alleged to have been caused to the Corporation and the allegations made by the respondents are baseless and incorrect. Therefore, appropriate orders be passed in the writ petition by setting aside the impugned orders and allow the writ petition. 12. On 17.08.2009, this Court while admitting the writ petition, granted stay of recovery of the amount, until further orders. 13. This Court, having considered the rival submissions made by the learned counsel for the respective parties, is of the considered view that the 1 st respondent issued Memorandum dated 27.02.2007 to the petitioner framing two charges against the petitioner. As discussed above, the Management has partially proved the charge levelled against the petitioner in respect of Article-I and it has not proved the charge levelled against the petitioner in respect of Article-II. In the Enquiry report, it was observed that all the documentary and circumstantial evidence produced by the Management disproves the Management story and both the charges as mentioned in Article-I and Article-II could not be proved by the Management. Once the Management itself has not proved the charges levelled against the petitioner, the question of imposing of major penalty does not arise. In the instant case, it cannot be said that there is no involvement of the petitioner. According to the petitioner, his role is very limited in the entire episode, but he cannot escape from the entire punishment. Therefore, the imposition of penalty of stoppage of two annual grade increments with cumulative effect is a major penalty and it is highly excessive and disproportionate. However, the respondent authorities stated that the said punishment is a minor punishment. But, the said contention is not correct, as the imposition of the said penalty is a major penalty. Respondent Nos.2 and 3 without considering the contentions raised by the petitioner confirmed the order passed by the 1 st respondent. Respondent Nos.2 and 3 ought to have modified the punishment imposed against the petitioner. 14. But, the said contention is not correct, as the imposition of the said penalty is a major penalty. Respondent Nos.2 and 3 without considering the contentions raised by the petitioner confirmed the order passed by the 1 st respondent. Respondent Nos.2 and 3 ought to have modified the punishment imposed against the petitioner. 14. With the above said observation, imposing the punishment of stoppage of two annual grade increments with cumulative effect is highly excessive and disproportionate and the same is liable to be modified. 15. Therefore, the punishment of stoppage of two annual grade increments with cumulative effect vide proceedings dated 22.09.2008 and Corrigendum dated 07.11.2008, is modified to that of stoppage of two annual grade increments without cumulative effect. 16. Insofar as the recovery of amount of Rs.38,226/- and Rs.25,000/- is concerned, major penalty charge-sheet No.145/HR/DISC/ITDC/06, dated 27.02.2007, discloses the description of stolen goods by the petitioner along with quantity. Therefore, penalty of recovery of loss has been imposed as per the value of the items stolen by the petitioner, as the same was duly proved in the inquiry report. Therefore, the imposition of penalty of recovery of the said amount by the 1 st respondent holds good. 17. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this Writ Petition, shall stand closed.