JUDGMENT : CHALLA GUNARANJAN, J. This writ petition one in the nature of Writ of Certiorari is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking to call for the records relating to the orders of the A.P. Administrative Tribunal passed in O.A. No.1240 of 2007, dated 26.03.2009 and quash the same as being perverse, in excess of jurisdiction and contrary to law and for a consequential direction. 2. The brief facts of the case in a nutshell are that: (a) The 1st respondent, while working as Junior Assistant in the office of the Commercial Tax Officer, Akividu, alleging that he indulged in grave irregularities of misappropriation of Government Revenue, was placed under suspension, besides issuing memo dated 05.07.2004 proposing articles of charges. The Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Tax, Eluru Division, East Godavari District – i.e., the 2nd petitioner, who initiated the above proceedings in his charge memo has alleged that the 1st respondent collected an amount of Rs.7,900/- towards professional tax and sales tax unauthorizedly from different dealers and misappropriated the same rather than depositing the said amounts with the treasury or the Deputy Commercial Tax Officer-I, Akividu, and thereby, misused his official position and misappropriated the amounts so collected, which was in violation of A.P. Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1964. (b) The Commercial Tax Officer – I, Tanuku, so appointed by the 2nd petitioner, upon conducting enquiry into the above charges submitted report dated 17.11.2004 holding that the above said charges were proved against the 1st respondent. In pursuance to the same, the 2nd petitioner after issuing a proper show-cause notice, enclosing the enquiry report and considering the objections of 1st respondent thereon, by proceedings Ref. No.B2/2019/2003, dated 01.07.2006, imposed major penalty of dismissal from service. (c) Aggrieved by the same, the 1st respondent has preferred appeal before the 3rd petitioner – Appellate Authority, who by proceedings CCT’s Ref.No.V4/281/2005, dated 17.02.2007, dismissed the same and confirmed the order of dismissal. (d) Aggrieved by the aforesaid proceedings dated 01.07.2006 issued by the 2nd petitioner imposing major penalty of dismissal from service and as confirmed by the 3rd petitioner by order dated 17.02.2007, the 1st respondent preferred O.A. No.1240 of 2007 before the A.P. Administrative Tribunal. (d) Aggrieved by the aforesaid proceedings dated 01.07.2006 issued by the 2nd petitioner imposing major penalty of dismissal from service and as confirmed by the 3rd petitioner by order dated 17.02.2007, the 1st respondent preferred O.A. No.1240 of 2007 before the A.P. Administrative Tribunal. (e) In the above said O.A., the 1st respondent has mainly contended that the charge memo dated 05.07.2004 and the consequential proceedings of dismissal from service issued by the Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Eluru, was without jurisdiction and he is incompetent to exercise such power. It was the specific pleaded case that in view of G.O.Ms.No.581, Revenue (SPE) Department, dated 24.05.1976 issued in pursuance to Presidential Order, more particularly Paragraph 11 thereof r/w Annexure-I, the appointing authority to the post of Lower Division Clerks being the Deputy Commissioner, the territorial jurisdiction over the revenue district of East Godavari and West Godavari District being conferred on Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Kakinada, he alone could have exercised the power and jurisdiction but not the Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Eluru i.e., the 2nd petitioner herein. In support of the above submission, the 1st respondent relied on the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in S.Prakasha Rao and another v. Commissioner of Commercial Taxes and others, AIR 1990 SC 997 , besides the Tribunal’s order in O.A. No.4205 of 1998. (f) Opposing the aforesaid contention, the petitioners herein have, in their counter, contended that the Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Eluru, the District Head (West Godavari District) of Commercial Taxes Department, being the appointing authority to the post of Junior Assistant in which the respondent/applicant was working, by virtue of Rule 9 of A.P. (Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1991, was competent to impose major penalties and rightly, the 2nd petitioner initiated disciplinary proceedings by issuing charge memo dated 05.07.2004 and imposed a major penalty of dismissal from service. (g) The aforesaid contention of 2nd petitioner has been negative by the Tribunal and held that in view of local cadre organization of Commercial Tax Department under the Presidential Order issued in G.O.Ms.No.581, dated 24.05.1976, in particular Paragraph No.11 r/w Annexure – I of the same that jurisdiction vested with Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Kakinada, but not the Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Eluru and accordingly allowed the O.A. 3. Heard learned Government Pleader for Services – II for the petitioners. 4. Heard learned Government Pleader for Services – II for the petitioners. 4. (a) The learned Government Pleader assailing the order of the Tribunal contended that the reasons given for allowing the O.A. are completely perverse and that the Tribunal has exceeded the jurisdiction in granting the relief favouring the 1st respondent. He further contends that as the 1st respondent was appointed as Junior Assistant by the 2nd petitioner by proceedings dated 16.12.1994 and as he being the appointing authority is equally competent to initiate disciplinary action acting as disciplinary authority in terms of Rule 14(2)(i) of Andhra Pradesh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1991 (herein after, for short ‘the Rules, 1991’). (b) That apart he further contends that the Tribunal had not considered subsequent G.O. issued by the Government vide G.O.Ms.No.701, Revenue (SS) Department, dated 28.04.1981, which provided for reorganization and restructuring of the Commercial Tax Department and creation of new divisions of Commercial Taxes, by which the new Division of Commercial Taxes at Eluru was carved out and therefore, the Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Eluru, being the Division Head was very much competent to initiate disciplinary proceedings against the 1st respondent. (c) Lastly he also contends that the very initiation of O.A. before the Tribunal was bad for non-joinder of necessary party inasmuch as the State of Andhra Pradesh was not made party to the proceedings, therefore, the Tribunal ought to have dismissed the O.A. on the aforesaid ground. 5. Perused the record. 6. The core issue that falls for consideration before this Court is as to whether the 2nd petitioner was competent enough and well within his jurisdiction in initiating disciplinary proceedings qua 1st respondent by issuing the charge memo dated 05.07.2004 and the consequential proceedings Ref.No.B2/2019/2003, dated 1.07.2006 imposing the major penalty of dismissal from service. 7. It is an admitted fact that alleging certain grave irregularities of misappropriation of Government Revenue, the 1st respondent who was a Junior Assistant in the office of Commercial Tax, Akividu, was placed under suspension, followed by issuance of a charge memo dated 05.07.2004 by the 2nd petitioner. Subsequently, after calling for a report from CTO-I, the 2nd petitioner proceeded with show-cause notice and concluded the disciplinary proceedings by imposing the major punishment of dismissal from service. Subsequently, after calling for a report from CTO-I, the 2nd petitioner proceeded with show-cause notice and concluded the disciplinary proceedings by imposing the major punishment of dismissal from service. The said order dated 01.07.2006 issued by the 2nd petitioner was confirmed by the appellate authority i.e., the 3rd petitioner by order dated 17.02.2007. 8. While referring to Rule 14(2)(i) of the Rules, 1991, the learned Government Pleader contended that the 2nd petitioner being the appointing authority is empowered to impose major penalties as specified in Rule 9 sub-clauses (ii), (v) to (x) of the Rules, 1991. 9. It is apposite to extract Rule 14(2)(i) of the Rules, 1991, which reads as under: “14.(2) (i) The authority which may impose on a member of a Subordinate Service, the penalties specified in clauses (ii), (v) to (x) of rule 9 shall be the appointing authority or any authority to which it is subordinate.” 10. Article 371D of the Constitution of India was inserted by Constitution 32nd Amendment Act, 1973 w.e.f. 01.07.1974 and dealt with special provisions with regard to composite State of Andhra Pradesh. In exercise of said power conferred, under Article 371D, Presidential order in relation to Public Employment (Organization of Local Cadres and Regulation of Direct Recruitment) was made which commonly known as Andhra Pradesh Public Employment (Organization of Local Cadres and Regulation of Direct Recruitment) Order, 1975 (herein after, referred as ‘Presidential Order’) and the same has come into force on 18.10.1975. 11. For better appreciation of the facts of the case, it is also apposite to extract Article 371D of the Constitution of India, which is relevant for the present purpose reads as under: “371D. Special provisions with respect to the State of Andhra Pradesh. (1) The President may by order made with respect to the State of Andhra Pradesh provide, having regard to the requirements of the State as a whole, for equitable opportunities and facilities for the people belonging to different parts of the State, in the matter of public employment and in the matter of education, and different provisions may be made for various parts of the State. (2) An order made under clause (1) may, in particular,- (a) require the State Government to organise any class or classes of posts in a civil service of, or any class or classes of civil posts under, the State into different local cadres for different parts of the State and allot in accordance with such principles and procedure as may be specified in the order the persons holding such posts to the local cadres so organised; (b) specify any part or parts of the State which shall be regarded as the local area- (i) for direct recruitment to posts in any local cadre (whether organised in pursuance of an order under this article or constituted otherwise) under the State Government; (ii) for direct recruitment to posts in any cadre under any local authority within the State; and (iii) for the purposes of admission to any University within the State or to any other educational institution which is subject to the control of the State Government; (c) specify the extent to which, the manner in which and the conditions subject to which, preference or reservation shall be given or made- (i) in the matter of direct recruitment to posts in any such cadre referred to in sub-clause (b) as may be specified in this behalf in the order; (ii) in the matter of admission to any such University or other educational institution referred to in sub-clause (b) as may be specified in this behalf in the order, to or in favour of candidates who have resided or studied for any period specified in the order in the local area in respect of such cadre, University or other educational institution, as the case may be. (10) The provisions of this article and of any order made by the President thereunder shall have effect notwithstanding anything in any other provision of this Constitution or in any other law for the time being in force.” 12. A reading of the above G.O. would indicate that the Government of Andhra Pradesh keeping in view the provisions of Presidential Order has formulated a scheme for reorganization of local cadres in the Commercial Tax Department. A reading of the above G.O. would indicate that the Government of Andhra Pradesh keeping in view the provisions of Presidential Order has formulated a scheme for reorganization of local cadres in the Commercial Tax Department. As per which, in terms of Para 11, the lower Division Clerks, Lower Division Commercial Tax Inspector, Lower Division Stenos, and Typists were brought under the jurisdiction of concerned Deputy Commissioners of Commercial Taxes as appointing authority, and such Deputy Commissioner as mentioned in Annexure-I will exercise territorial jurisdiction on the personnel working therein. In Annexure-I which specified the jurisdiction of respective Deputy Commissioners Division, the territorial spread of East Godavari and West Godavari Districts were vested with the Deputy Commissionerate at Kakinada Division, and in fact, there is no division of Deputy Commissionerate, Eluru, as such, in the entire annexure – I. If one goes by the aforesaid G.O. on the jurisdictions of Deputy Commissioners as per the Divisions specified therein, the 1st respondent who was working as Junior Assistant at Akividu, West Godavari District, would clearly fall within the jurisdiction of Deputy Commissioner at Kakinada. The aforesaid G.O. issued following the Presidential Order has been in force as on day without any changes. Though Rule 14(2)(i) of the Rules, 1991 prescribes that the appointing authority shall have powers to initiate major penalties in terms of Rule 9 sub clauses (ii) and (v) to (x), in view of G.O.Ms.No.581, Revenue (SPE) Department, dated 24.05.1976, which has been issued following the Presidential Order confirming jurisdiction on the Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Kakinada, the orders issued under Presidential Order shall prevail over the Rule 14(2)(i). The jurisdictions, those have been carved out in pursuance to G.O.Ms.No.581, dated 24.05.1976, vesting powers on the respective Deputy Commissionerates Division wise cannot be altered or interdicted in any manner unless there is consent of President of India. The G.O. was issued in accordance with Presidential Order which in turn was made under Article 371D of the Constitution of India. Though the G.O. being an executive order, however, the same having been issued in terms of Presidential Order under Article 371D of the Constitution of India, the same would prevail over Rule 14(2)(i) of the Rules, 1991, in view of clause (10) of Article 371(D) of Constitution of India. 13. Though the G.O. being an executive order, however, the same having been issued in terms of Presidential Order under Article 371D of the Constitution of India, the same would prevail over Rule 14(2)(i) of the Rules, 1991, in view of clause (10) of Article 371(D) of Constitution of India. 13. It is also apposite to extract Para 3(1) of the Andhra Pradesh Public Employment (Orgnisation of Local Cadres and Regulation of Direct Recruitment) Order, 1975 (Presidential Order), which reads as under: “3. Organisation of Local Cadres:- (1) The State Government shall, within a period of eighteen months from the commencement of this Order, organise classes of posts in the civil services of, and classes of civil posts under, the State into different local cadres for different parts of the State to the extent, and in the manner, hereinafter provided. "Provided that, notwithstanding the expiration of the said period, the President may by order, require the State Government, Whenever he considers it expedient so to do, to organise any classes of posts in the civil services of, and classes of civil posts under, the State into different local cadres for different parts of the State". 14. As per Para 3(1) of the said order, the State Government within a period of 18 months was required to organize the classes of posts in the Civil Services and classes of Civil Posts under the State into different local cadres for different parts of the State, which exercise came to be done and necessary scheme has been formulated inter alia for organization of local cadres in the commercial tax department and necessary orders were issued to that effect vide G.O.Ms.No.581, dated 24.05.1976. 15. 15. It is apt to refer to the judgment of the Hon’ble High Court for the State of Telangana in Dr.S.Satyanarayana and others v. The State of Telangana and another, W.P. Nos.30771 of 2024 and batch, dated 17.12.2024, which has considered the applicability of Article 371D in relation to the admissions made for Post Graduate Courses in the State of Telangana, while considering the scope of the Presidential Order namely the Andhra Pradesh Educational Institutions (Regulation of Admissions) Order, 1974, quay Telangana Medical Colleges (Admission into Post Graduate Medical Courses) Rules, 2021, made by the State, held as follows: “From perusal of Article 371D(10) of the Constitution of India, it is evident that the same contains a non - obstante clause and therefore, the provisions of Article 371D of the Constitution and of any order made by President shall have effect over any other provision of the Constitution or any other law.” 16. The other submission of learned Government Pleader that G.O.Ms.No.701, dated 28.04.1981, has conferred power on the 2nd petitioner to initiate disciplinary proceedings against 1st respondent, inasmuch the Government vide the said G.O., has reorganized by creating certain additional posts and divisions, as per which the office of Commercial Taxes at Akividu was within the administrative control of the 2nd petitioner. A close scrutiny of said G.O. though deals with reorganization and restructuring of Commercial Tax Department, the same was issued in the context of creating new Divisions, Circles, Unit Offices, and various other posts for the administrative convenience. As per the said G.O., a total of 29 Commercial Tax officers were assigned with various functions. By no stretch of imagination, the said G.O. could be treated as one which confers specific jurisdiction on the respective Deputy Commissionerate Divisions in amendment to the jurisdictions, those were carved out in terms of Annexure – I r/w Para 11 of G.O.Ms.No.581, dated 24.05.1976, in line with Presidential Order. There is not even a reference to either G.O.Ms.No.581 or Presidential Order, therefore, the mere reorganization and restructuring of the Commercial Taxes Department for the sake of administrative convenience will not in any manner confer jurisdiction on the 2nd petitioner to exercise disciplinary powers upon the subordinate staff who otherwise were to be falling within the jurisdiction of the Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes at Kakinada. The Tribunal has rightly by referring to the aforesaid G.O.Ms.No.581, dated 24.05.1976, which was formulated in terms of Presidential Order concluded that the 2nd petitioner was incompetent and did not have jurisdiction in initiating the disciplinary proceedings and imposing major penalty of dismissal from service. Further, the aforesaid view of the Tribunal was also supported by referring to the Apex Court judgment rendered in S.Prakasha Rao’s case (supra), which was later followed by the Tribunal in O.A. No.4205/1998, which reiterated that the Units, Zones created by the Government under G.O.Ms.No.581, dated 24.05.1976, demarcates the specific jurisdiction of concerned competent authorities in that division and any further sub-division or alteration of Divisions for the purpose of administrative convenience would be in violation of the Presidential Order unless such subdivision or change in the divisions was with the consent of President of India. Even in the present case, though the learned Government Pleader tried to justify the action of the 2nd petitioner in assuming the jurisdiction over the 1st respondent with reference to G.O.Ms.No.701, dated 28.04.1981, as held above, the said G.O. being merely issued for the sake of administrative convenience, without any approval or consent of the President of India, the same ipso facto would not denude the jurisdiction of Deputy Commercial Tax Officer at Kakinada and confer the same on 2nd petitioner. 17. In so far as the last submission that the O.A. is bad for non-joinder of necessary and proper party i.e., State of Andhra Pradesh, the petitioners have not raised such contention before the Tribunal and having not pleaded so either in the counter or during the arguments before the Tribunal, they are precluded from raising such contention in the present writ petition. The O.A. was filed aggrieved by the orders of dismissal passed by the 2nd petitioner and as confirmed by the 3rd petitioner, who is none other than the Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes being the appellate authority. Therefore, the issue was well exposed and contested on their behalf before the Tribunal. 18. In view of the above findings and conclusions drawn, we do not find any infirmity in the order passed by the Tribunal, which rightly has set aside the orders passed by the 2nd petitioner as confirmed by the 3rd petitioner to be without jurisdiction. 19. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed. No costs. 18. In view of the above findings and conclusions drawn, we do not find any infirmity in the order passed by the Tribunal, which rightly has set aside the orders passed by the 2nd petitioner as confirmed by the 3rd petitioner to be without jurisdiction. 19. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed. No costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending consideration if any in this case shall stand closed.