ORDER : 1. Heard Sri S.Gopal Rao, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Services-II appearing on behalf of the respondents. 2. The petitioner approached this Court seeking the prayer as under: “…to issue a writ in the nature of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, by declaring the proceedings of the 1 st respondent bearing G.O.Rt.No.38, Revenue (Vigilance-I) Department, dt.1-2- 2021, imposing a penalty of 10% cut-in-pension for a period of 3 years against the petitioner and set aside the same, as illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional being violative of Articles 14, 16 & 21 of Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents to accord notional promotion in the category of Deputy Collector and Special Grade Deputy Collector with effect from a due date and further fix his pensionary benefits based on such notional promotion by applying pay scales as revised from time to time by regulating various spells of period as on duty by passing orders by the 1 st respondent on the proceedings of the 2 nd respondent bearing CCLA's Lr.No.Ser.III(1)/314/2018, dt. 29-02-2020 and direct the respondents to release the entire pensionary benefits including DCRG, Commutation etc., with interest, as otherwise the petitioner will be put to heavy and irreparable loss.” 3. The petitioner was initially appointed as a Probationary Deputy Tahsildar through APPSC in 1985 and was promoted as Tahsildar in 1996. Though eligible for promotion to Deputy Collector in 1998–99, the petitioner’s case was deferred due to a pending disciplinary case, and the petitioner’s junior, Sri K. Madhusudhan, was promoted instead. Subsequently, punishment of one annual grade increment stoppage with cumulative effect was imposed on 27.08.2002 but was later set aside on 22.10.2007. In 2010, baseless allegations from 2008 led to a charge memo vide G.O.Rt.No.700 Revenue (Vigilance –III) Department dated 12.05.2010, to which the petitioner submitted a detailed explanation denying the allegations on 12.08.2010. Despite retiring on 31.03.2013, the petitioner’s provisional pension was delayed until 2018 and released only after filing a contempt case with the A.P. Administrative Tribunal. The petitioner was also falsely implicated in SC/ST Sessions Case No.18 of 2003 and was acquitted on 23.09.2005. Subsequently, G.O.Rt.No.38 Revenue (Vigilance –I) Department dated 01.02.2021 was issued to the petitioner imposing penalty of 10% cut in pension for three years. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed the present writ petition. The petitioner was also falsely implicated in SC/ST Sessions Case No.18 of 2003 and was acquitted on 23.09.2005. Subsequently, G.O.Rt.No.38 Revenue (Vigilance –I) Department dated 01.02.2021 was issued to the petitioner imposing penalty of 10% cut in pension for three years. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed the present writ petition. PERUSED THE RECORD: 4. This Court, on 24.03.2021, passed interim order in favour of the petitioner observing as under: “In view of the same, the 1 st respondent-State of Telangana is directed to release 90% of the pensionary benefits in favour of the petitioner within a reasonable period of time. Post the Writ Petition for final hearing immediately after summer vacation 2021.” 5. The relevant portion of the impugned order of the respondent No.1 bearing G.O.Rt.No.38 Revenue (Vigilance –I ) Department dated 01.02.2021 is extracted hereunder: “It has been brought to the notice of the Government through the Chief Commissioner of Land Administration, Telangana State, Hyderabad that Charged Officer Sri J.Shiva Shankar, former Special Deputy Collector (TW), Bhadrachalam (now retired) while functioning as Spl.DC (TW), Bhadrachalam has committed irregularities in several cases ignoring the LTR Regulations and without following due procedure vide reference 1 read above. Accordingly Articles of charges have been framed against him for violation of APCS (Conduct) Rules, 1991 calling for his explanation vide reference 2 nd read above. In the reference 3 rd read above, the charged officer has submitted his written statement of defence. Not convincing with the explanation of the Charged officer, it has been ordered for conducting regular inquiry vide reference 4 th read above. In the reference 5th read above, the Inquiry Officer has submitted his inquiry report stating that charges are held proved. Subsequently, the Enquiry Report was communicated to Sri.J.Shiv Shankar, Special Deputy Collector (Retd) (TW) Bhadrachalam and to offer his representation on the finding of the inquiry report vide reference 6th read above. The Charged officer has submitted his explanation vide reference 7 th read above. After careful examination of the entire matter, keeping in view the findings of the enquiry Officer and explanation submitted by the Charged Officer, Government have provisionally decided to impose a punishment of 10% cut in pension for a period of 3 years on Sri.J.Shiv Shankar, Special Deputy Collector (Retd) (TW) Bhadrachalarn for the charge held proved during inquiry, under Rule 9 of TRP Rules, 1980. Accordingly, a show cause notice was issued to Sri.J.Shiv Shankar, Special Deputy Collector(Retd) (TW) Bhadrachalam vide reference 8th read above duly I ndicating the provisional decision of the department i.e., to impose a punishment of 10% cut in pension for a period of 3 years against him. Subsequently he has submitted his explanation with a request to drop further action against him vide reference 9th read above. In the reference 10 th read above, the Secretary, TSPSC, Hyderabad was requested to obtain the concurrence of the Commission on the decision of the Government for imposing a punishment of 10% cut in pension for a period of (3) year on Sri.J.Shiv Shankar, Special Deputy Collector (Retd) (TW) Bhadrachalam. In the reference 11 th read above, the Prl.Secretary, TSPSC, Hyderabad has furnished the advice of TSPSC on the proposal of the Government. After careful examination of the entire case in detail and keeping in view of the advice of TSPSC and taking into consideration of Inquiring Authority report, it has been decided to impose a penalty of 10% cut in pension for 3 years against Sri. J.Shiv Shankar, Special Deputy Collector (Retd) (TW) Bhadrachalam. Accordingly Government hereby order to impose a penalty of 10% cut in pension for a period of 3 years against Sri.J.Shiv Shankar, Special Deputy Collector(Retd) (TW) Bhadrachalam.The Chief Commissioner of Land Administration, Telangana State, Hyderabad is, requested to take further action accordingly in the matter.” 6. The averments made in the affidavit filed by the petitioner in support of the present writ petition, in particular, paragraph Nos.6 is extracted hereunder: “6. It is submitted that with regard to the allegations pertain to the year 2008, a Charge Memo was issued nearly about lapse of 2 years vide G.O.Rt.No.700, Revenue (Vig.III) Department, dt. 12-5-2010, for which the petitioner had submitted his detailed explanation on 12-8-2010, denying the charges and requested to drop further action. No proper enquiry as contemplated under CC&A Rules, have been conducted i.e. no witnesses were examined, not even the petitioner was examined, based on such laconic enquiry the 1 st respondent has issued the impugned proceedings bearing G.O.Rt.No.38, Revenue (Vigilance-I ) Department, dt. 1-2-2021, imposing punishment of 10% cut-in-pension for a period of 3 years against the petitioner. No proper enquiry as contemplated under CC&A Rules, have been conducted i.e. no witnesses were examined, not even the petitioner was examined, based on such laconic enquiry the 1 st respondent has issued the impugned proceedings bearing G.O.Rt.No.38, Revenue (Vigilance-I ) Department, dt. 1-2-2021, imposing punishment of 10% cut-in-pension for a period of 3 years against the petitioner. The said proceedings of the 1 st respondent are totally illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional being violative of Articles 14, 16 & 21 of Constitution of India, since no witnesses were examined and no enquiry as provided under Rule 20 of CC&A Rules have been followed, thus the impugned proceedings are liable to be set aside. It is submitted that the petitioner retired from service as long back as on 31-03-2013, presently he is suffering with old age ailments and he was subjected to various kinds of surgeries in Yashoda Hospital, Somajiguda and Mamata Hospital, Bachupally and also suffering with Diabetes, B.P.and Hypertension, etc., thus he is suffering with a lot of financial problems for his treatment and thereby suffering with humiliation and untold pain. In the circumstances narrated above the petitioner is approaching this Hon'ble Court by way of present W.P.” 7. The relevant portion of G.O.Rt.No.700 Revenue (Vigilance–III ) Department dated 12.05.2010 is extracted hereunder: “It is proposed to hold an enquiry against Sri J..Shiva Shankar, Deputy Collector presently working as Special Deputy Collector (TW), Bhadrachalam in accordance with the procedure laid down in rule 20 of the Andhra Pradesh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1991. 2. The substances of the imputations of misconduct or misbehavior in respect of which the Inquiry is proposed to be held is set out in the enclosed statement of articles of charges (Annexure-I& II). A list of documents by which, and a list of witnesses by whom, the articles of charges are proposed to be sustained are also enclosed (Annexure-III and IV). 3. Sri.J.Shiva Shankar, D.C. presently working as Special Deputy Collector (TW), Bhadrachalam, is directed to submit has written statement of defence on or before25.05.2010 4. Sri J. Shiva Shankar, D.C. presently working as Special Deputy Collector (TW), Bhadrachalam, is informed that an inquiry will be held only in respect of those articles of charges as are not admitted. He should, therefore, specifically admit or deny each article of charge. 5. Sri J. Shiva Shankar, D.C. presently working as Special Deputy Collector (TW), Bhadrachalam, is informed that an inquiry will be held only in respect of those articles of charges as are not admitted. He should, therefore, specifically admit or deny each article of charge. 5. He is further informed that if he does not submit his written statement of defence on or before the date specified in para-3 above further action will be processed based on the material available. 6. Attention of. Sri J. Shiva Shankar, D.C. presently working as Special Deputy Collector (TW), Bhadrachalam, is invited to rule-24 of the Andhra Pradesh Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1964, under which no Government servant shall bring or attempt to bring any political or outside influence to bear upon any superior authority to further his interest in respect of matters pertaining to his service under the Government. If any representation is received on his behalf from another person in respect of any matter dealt with in these proceedings it will be presumed that he is aware of such representation and that it has been made at his instance and action will be taken against him for violation of rule 24 of the Andhra Pradesh Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1964.” 8. The relevant portion of the statement of Article of charges framed against Sri K.Shiva Shankar, Special Dy. Collector (TW), Bhadrachalam is extracted hereunder: “ Article. ?o.1: Sri. J.Shaiva Shankar while functioning as Special Dy. Collector (TW), Bhadrachalam during period from 1.7.2008 to till-to-date has passed orders in several cases ignorious the L.T.R Regulations and without following due procedure as indicated below. 1. Accepting sada sale deeds and hand receipts of L.R denying the rights of tribals and giving orders in favour of Non-tribals. 2. Dropping the cases in favour of N.Ts taking into account the withdrawal petitions given by the tribals. 3. Dropping the cases filed by the Tahsildars between Non-Tribes to Non-tribes ignoring the reports of the Tahsildars. 4. Dropping the cases filed between N.Ts to N.Ts taking into account the withdrawal petitions filed subsequently by N.Ts. 5. Dropping the cases of N.Ts to N.Ts through the records are tampered with different ink and change in the writing. 6. 3. Dropping the cases filed by the Tahsildars between Non-Tribes to Non-tribes ignoring the reports of the Tahsildars. 4. Dropping the cases filed between N.Ts to N.Ts taking into account the withdrawal petitions filed subsequently by N.Ts. 5. Dropping the cases of N.Ts to N.Ts through the records are tampered with different ink and change in the writing. 6. Dropping the cases of N.Ts to N.Ts through there are violations of L.T. Regulations by accepting the sada sale deeds, L.R. receipts on white papers and based on the latest entries in the adangals. 7. Rejecting the claims filed by the tribals, though there are tampering of records and passing favorable orders in favour of N.Ts. As seen from the above it is clear that the officer has behaved in a manner which is unbecoming to the prestige of the Govt. and placed the official position under embracement. Thus he violated Rule 3 of APCS (Conduct) Rule 1964. Basis of Charge: P.O. ITDA Bhadrachalam Rc. No.A3/2913/2008, Dated 11.8.2009.” 9. Rules 10(a) to 11(b) of the Classification, Control and Appeal Rules, 1965 is extracted hereunder: “(10)(a): On the dates fixed for recording the evidence, the oral and documentary evidence by which the articles of charges are proposed to be proved shall be produced by or on behalf of the Disciplinary Authority. (b) The evidence shall be recorded as far as possible on day-to-day basis till the evidence on behalf of the Disciplinary Authority is completed. (c) The witnesses shall be examined by or on behalf of the Presenting Officer and they may be cross examined by or on behalf of the Government Servant. (d) The Presenting Officer shall be entitled to re-examine the witnesses on any points on which they have been cross examined, but not on any new matter without the permission of the Inquiring Authority. (e) The Inquiring Authority may also put such questions to the witnesses as it thinks fit. 11) (a): If it appears necessary before the closure of the case on behalf of the Disciplinary Authority, the Inquiring Authority may, in its discretion, allow the Presenting Officer to produce evidence not included in the list given to the Government Servant or may itself call for new evidence or recall and re-examine any witness. 11) (a): If it appears necessary before the closure of the case on behalf of the Disciplinary Authority, the Inquiring Authority may, in its discretion, allow the Presenting Officer to produce evidence not included in the list given to the Government Servant or may itself call for new evidence or recall and re-examine any witness. (b) In such case, the Government Servant shall be entitled to have a copy of the list of further evidence proposed to be produced and an adjournment of the inquiry for three clear days before the production of such new evidence, exclusive of the day of adjournment and the day to which the inquiry is adjourned.” DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION: 10. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that a charge memo vide G.O.Rt.No.700, Revenue (Vigilance–III) Department, dated 12.05.2010, was issued by Respondent No.1. The charges pertain to the petitioner’s discharge of duties while serving as Deputy Collector (TW), Bhadrachalam, during the period from 01.07.2008 until the issuance of the said charge memo. It is alleged that the petitioner, ignored the LTR regulations and without following due procedure, passed certain orders in several cases. Based on these 2008 allegations, the charge memo was issued. Subsequently, after more than a decade, the impugned proceedings vide G.O.Rt.No.38, dated 01.02.2021, were issued, imposing a penalty of a 10% cut in pension for a period of three years. 11. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the allegations leveled against the petitioner pertain to the year 2008, and the charge memo was issued only on 12.05.2010 after a delay of more than two years. However, without conducting any enquiry, without examining the petitioner or any witnesses, and without following the procedure mandated under Rule 20 of CC & A Rules, the impugned order was passed by Respondent No.1. Furthermore, the impugned proceedings dated 01.02.2021, imposing a 10% cut in pension for a period of three years, were issued more than a decade after the charge memo. Furthermore, the impugned proceedings dated 01.02.2021, imposing a 10% cut in pension for a period of three years, were issued more than a decade after the charge memo. Since this action is in violation of the mandatory procedure for conducting an enquiry, and in view of the fact that the specific averments made by the petitioner in particular at para No.6 of the affidavit filed by the petitioner in support of the present writ petition were neither referred nor denied in the counter affidavit filed by Respondents No.1 and 2 in February 2021, the writ petition has to be allowed as prayed for. 12. The Learned Assistant Government Pleader, placing reliance on the averments made in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of Respondent Nos. 1 and 2, contends that the petitioner was absent from duties for nearly 1686 days and never took any steps for regularization during his service, and therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to the relief as prayed for in the present writ petition, since the petitioner superannuated on 31.03.2013. 13. A bare perusal of the record indicates that the charge memo issued to the petitioner vide G.O.Rt.No.700, Revenue (Vigilance–III) Department, dated 12.05.2010 refers to the discharge of duties by the petitioner as Special Deputy Collector (T&W), Bhadrachalam, during the period from 01.07.2008. In particular, it refers to the orders passed by the petitioner in several cases, alleging that the petitioner passed the said orders while being ignorant of the LTR regulations. As borne on record, the impugned order dated 01.02.2021, vide G.O.Rt.No.38, was issued against the petitioner by respondent No.1 after a period of more than 10 years, imposing a penalty of a 10% cut in pension for a period of three years. 14. A bare perusal of the averments made in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 and 2 indicates that none of the specific averments made by the petitioner in paragraph No. 6 of the affidavit filed in support of the present writ petition (referred to and extracted above) have been denied. 15. 14. A bare perusal of the averments made in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 and 2 indicates that none of the specific averments made by the petitioner in paragraph No. 6 of the affidavit filed in support of the present writ petition (referred to and extracted above) have been denied. 15. It is the specific case of the petitioner that no proper enquiry was conducted as contemplated under the CC & A Rules, none of the witnesses were examined, not even the petitioner was examined, and the impugned proceedings were issued against the petitioner in clear violation of the principles of natural justice and contrary to the procedure laid down under Rules 10(a) to 11(b) of the Classification, Control, and Appeal Rules (referred to and extracted above). 16. This Court also takes note of the fact as borne on record that the show cause notice dated 30.04.2019 issued to the petitioner indicated a provisional decision of the department to impose a punishment of 100% cut in pension for a period of three years against the petitioner, at the threshold itself prejudging the subject issue even before conducting an enquiry and the said fact is clearly evident at para ‘3’ of the impugned G.O.Rt.No.38 dated 01.02.2021 issued by the 1 st respondent to the petitioner herein. 17. This Court opines that, on a perusal of the charge memo dated 12.05.2010, it is evident that the allegations leveled against the petitioner pertain to the petitioner's discharge of duties as a quasi-judicial authority. It is well settled that no departmental proceedings can be initiated in respect of the discharge of such duties, especially when there exists a provision for the aggrieved party to challenge the said orders in appeal. 18. I n view of the fact as borne on record that there is no denial of the specific averments pleaded by the petitioner in paragraph No. 6 of the affidavit filed in support of the present writ petition, which relate to the conduct of the enquiry in clear violation of the procedure laid down under the Rules, and without the petitioner being afforded reasonable opportunity or without the petitioner even being examined or any of the witnesses being examined, this Court opines that the enquiry itself stands vitiated. The enquiry admittedly being contrary to Rules 10(a) to 11(b) of the Classification, Control, and Appeal Rules (referred to and extracted above), and hence this Court is of the firm opinion that petitioner is entitled for the grant of relief in the present writ petition. 19. Taking into consideration: a) The aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, b) The submissions made by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Services-I I appearing on behalf of the respondents, c) The averments made in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent Nos.1 and 2, d) The contents of the charge memo vide G.O.Rt.No.700 Revenue (Vigilance–III) Department dated 12.05.2010 issued to the petitioner pertaining to petitioner’s discharge of duties as Special Deputy Collector (T & W), Bhadrachalam during the period from 01.07.2008 to till date, e) The contents of the proceedings vide G.O.Rt.No.38 Revenue (Vigilance–I) Department dated 01.02.2021 issued to the petitioner(referred to and extracted above), f) The fact that the specific averments pleaded by the petitioner at paragraph No.6 of the affidavit filed in the present writ petition (referred to and extracted above) had not been denied in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent Nos.1 and 2, g) Rules 10(a) to 11(b) of the CC & A Rules (referred to and extracted above) and admittedly the same had not been followed in the present case as borne on record and, h) The fact that the impugned proceedings had been passed after more than a decade, after issuance of the charge memo dated 12.05.2010 without following the due procedure contemplated under the CC&A Rules, i) The fact as borne on record that the 2 nd respondent vide proceedings dated 29.02.2020 addressed to the 1 st respondent requested the 1 st respondent to regularize certain gap periods of the petitioner for sanction of pensionary benefits to the petitioner, The writ petition is allowed as prayed for, and the impugned proceedings of the 1 st respondent bearing G.O.Rt.No.38 (Vigilance-I ) Department dated 01.02.2021 imposing a penalty of 10% cut-in-pension for a period of 3 years against the petitioner is set aside. The 1 st respondent is directed to consider the request of the petitioner for fixation of notional promotion in the category of Deputy Collector and Special Grade Deputy Collector with effect from due date and the 1 st respondent is further directed to consider the request of the petitioner for fixation of petitioner’s pensionary benefits based on such notional promotion by applying pay scales as revised from time to time within a period of four(4) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and pass appropriate orders in accordance to law, in conformity with the principles of natural justice after giving an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner duly considering the proceedings of the 2 nd respondent bearing CCLA’s Lr.No.Ser.I I I (1)/ 314/ 2018 dated 29.02.2020 and duly communicate the decision to the petitioner herein on the subject issue pertaining to the petitioner’s requests. However, there shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in the Writ Petition shall also stand closed.