- ORDER : Kiranmayee Mandava, J. Heard learned counsel Sri N. Sai Phanindra Kumar, appearing for the petitioner, and learned Government Pleader for Services-I appearing for the respondents. 2. The Writ Petition is filed challenging the proceedings of the 2nd respondent vide CCT’s Ref.No.VI/440/2015-II dated 24.03.2022, imposing a punishment of withholding two annual increments with cumulative effect. 3. It is contended that the petitioner was appointed as Assistant Commercial Tax Officer (ACTO) in the year 2009, the petitioner was posted as ACTO in Circle-II of Ananthapuramu, form 2009 to May, 2013. Thereafter, she was transferred to Office of the Joint Commissioner, Ananthapuramu. The 2nd respondent issued show cause notice dated 16.11.2015, seeking explanation of the petitioner on the alleged ground that the petitioner did not remit the sum of Rs.27,299/-, to the Government treasury, after collecting the same from the tax payers. The petitioner contends that the alleged misconduct was of one Sri B.Vinayaka, Junior Assistant, who was responsible for the non remittance of the said amount. It is further contended that the petitioner was diligent while handing over the sums to her subordinates. The challans submitted by them in proof of remittance of the sums were duly kept in the file, the same were subsequently found to be counterfeit challans. It is further contended that the Junior Assistant to whom the money was handed over was quite senior person in the department having rendered the services for substantial period of ten years. 4. It is further contended that the said Sri B.Vinayaka, had in fact admitted his guilt and he had remitted the sums that have been misappropriated by him. However, without dropping the proceedings initiated against the petitioner, the punishment was imposed. 5. Following are the charges framed:- “Article of charge-I:- That the said Smt.K.Jaya Madhavi Latha, the then ACTO, Kalyandurg and present ACTO, O/o DC(CT), Ananthapuramu has committed certain irregularities while working as ACTO, Kalyandurg, Ananthapuram division. The Deputy Commissioner (CT), Ananthapuram conducted enquiry on mismatching of challans entered in VATIS with reference to treasury data and reported non-remittance of Cash collections of tax made by the officers in the offices of Anantapuram-I & II circle to an extent of Rs.79,58,204/-. The Deputy Commissioner (CT), Ananthapuram conducted enquiry on mismatching of challans entered in VATIS with reference to treasury data and reported non-remittance of Cash collections of tax made by the officers in the offices of Anantapuram-I & II circle to an extent of Rs.79,58,204/-. Article of charge-II:- Smt.K.Jaya Madhavi Latha, the then ACTO, Kalyandurg and present ACTO, O/0 DC(CT), Anathapuramu division while functioning in the aforesaid office found have collected cash and issued receipts for cash collections of tax, to an extent of Rs.27,299/- but failed to remit into the Government Treasury through proper challans as per rules. Thus she is responsible for misappropriation of Government money to an extent of Rs.27,299/-.” 6. It is contended that the two charges were framed against the petitioner, however, only one charge was proved. It is contended that similar charges were framed against several other officers in the cadre of DCTO, ACTO & CTO, an Enquiry Officer was appointed to enquire into the charges framed against each of the Officers. The said Enquiry Officer without following the procedure contemplated under Rule 20 of the Andhra Pradesh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1991 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the CCA Rules’), has submitted his report on 06.12.2017, stating that the charge No.1 as proved and charge No.2 as not proved. The said enquiry report was furnished to the petitioner on 11.04.2017. The petitioner has submitted her explanation on 26.05.2017. The disciplinary proceedings initiated against the petitioner were not finalized. The claim of the petitioner for promotion to the next cadre was also denied. Challenging the same, she filed a Writ Petition in W.P.No.11407 of 2019 before this Court. The said Writ Petition was disposed of, directing the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for promotion without regard to the pending disciplinary proceedings. Instead of giving effect to the said order, it is contented that the respondents have passed the impugned order. The 1st respondent vide memo dated 25.02.2022, directed the 2nd respondent to place the petitioner before the screening committee for considering her case for promotion in terms of the orders of the Court in W.P. No.11407 of 2019 dated 26.08.2019. It is contended that instead of considering the same, the 2nd respondent imposed the punishment of withholding two annual increments with cumulative effect. 7. It is contended that instead of considering the same, the 2nd respondent imposed the punishment of withholding two annual increments with cumulative effect. 7. It is contended by the petitioner that the petitioner was never responsible for the alleged misconduct and there has never been any finding with regard to the petitioner being careless in discharge of her duties. It is contended that the impugned proceedings are not in accordance with Rule 20 of the CCA Rules, in as much as no witness was examined, no documents were marked and for the delay that has caused till concluding the proceedings till 2016, renders the impugned proceedings redundant. It is further contended that enquiry was initiated against one Sri B.Vinayaka, who has been alleged to be responsible for the alleged fraud. A crime was registered against him and he has admitted to the guilt stating that he would be solely responsible for the alleged fraud. In the said circumstances, it is further stated that the petitioner should not have been subjected to any proceedings, thus imposing the punishment of withholding of two increments with cumulative effect was unwarranted. 8. The 2nd respondent filed counter affidavit stating that the petitioner did not file any reply/representation to the memo dated 16.11.2015, the petitioner filed her representation dated 15.02.2016 and the same was received by their office on 26.02.2016, by which time the charges were framed against the petitioner and the other officers who were alleged to have been involved in the misappropriation of government funds on 25.02.2016. It is further contended that it is the duty and responsibility of the government servant is to cross check the remitted challan with the challan posting register, available at their office. However, the petitioner had failed to follow the same. 9. It is further stated that the Departmental Promotion Committee meeting was held on 27.08.2019 for approval adhoc panel of Assistant Commercial Tax Officers fit for promotion to the post of Deputy Commercial Tax Officers for the panel year 2018-19. The DPC approved three names of the GSTOs, who were seniors to the petitioner. However, the name of the petitioner did not come up for consideration in the said DPC. 10. The DPC approved three names of the GSTOs, who were seniors to the petitioner. However, the name of the petitioner did not come up for consideration in the said DPC. 10. It is further contended that subsequently, the Departmental Promotion Committee meeting was held on 24.08.2022 for approval of the adhoc panel of Goods and Service Tax Officers, fit for promotion to the post of Deputy Assistant Commissioner of State Tax for the panel year 2021-2022 of Zone-IV, in the said DPC the name of the petitioner was included. The DPC examined the case of the petitioner and found that, the petitioner was awarded punishment of withholding two Annual Grade Increments with cumulative effect vide CCST's Ref.No.V1/440/2015-11 dated 24.03.2022, therefore, while the said punishment was subsisting, the DPC Committee informed that, the petitioner would not be eligible for promotion, as per GO.Ms.No.342 GAD dated 04.08.1997. 11. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that as per the proceedings of the 1st respondent, there is no loss to the ex-chequer and in the case of a similarly situated person, the 1st respondent has taken a lenient view of negligence and procedural lapse on his part, whereas in the case of the petitioner, though she was not responsible for delay in remittance to the credit of the government account without any reasons, the major penalty of withholding two annual increments with cumulative effect has been imposed. To the enquiry report, the petitioner has submitted her explanation though the same was referred to in the reference column, the explanation was not considered and the impugned order was passed. It is further contended that this Court had directed the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for promotion without reference to the disciplinary proceedings. Thought the 1st respondent has requested the 2nd respondent to consider the case of the petitioner in terms of the orders passed in W.P. No.11407 of 2019, in a haste manner passed the impugned order. 12. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner further argues that delay in conclusion of the disciplinary proceedings is in violation of the CCA Rules and is in violation of principles of natural justice. 13. 12. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner further argues that delay in conclusion of the disciplinary proceedings is in violation of the CCA Rules and is in violation of principles of natural justice. 13. The learned counsel for the petitioner argued that no appeal is maintainable against the impugned order since the instant case would fall under Rule 32(iii) of the Andhra Pradesh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1991. 14. The learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents would argue that the petitioner was found negligent in discharge of her duties. The petitioner’s name was not taken up for consideration in the DPC of 2018-19. Subsequently two annual increments were withheld cumulatively. Therefore, her case was not considered for promotion. Thus, stated that she was not eligible for promotion. Since the punishment of withholding increments was with cumulative effect, the promotion was withheld in terms of G.O.Ms. No.342 GAD dated 04.08.1997. 15. Considered the submissions. Perused the record. As seen from the impugned proceedings, the order suffers from non application of mind having regard to the fact that the authority who has imposed the punishment, refers to the report submitted to the government on the charges framed against the petitioner and based on the instructions, received by him from the government has imposed the punishment. It completely lacks reasoning and fails to disclose the officer's application of mind. Apart from the same, the punishment imposed is grossly disproportionate to the charges framed against the petitioner. 16. It appears from the record that the said Sri B.Vinayaka, has rendered service for a considerable period of ten years to the department. In the light of the same, it cannot be said that the petitioner was not diligent in entrusting the money to him for remittance to the government treasury, so as to hold that the petitioner was guilty for supervisory negligence. The alleged supervisory negligence in handing over the money for remittance to a right   person would not arise, having regard to the fact that the said Sri B.Vinayaka, is a regular employee of the department entrusted with the duties of remittance of the amount to the government treasury, thus the imposition of two increments with cumulative effect is grossly disproportionate to the charges framed. 17. Accordingly, the impugned proceedings, vide CCT’s Ref.No.VI/440/2015-II dated 24.03.2022 issued by the 2nd respondent in the Writ Petition are set aside. 17. Accordingly, the impugned proceedings, vide CCT’s Ref.No.VI/440/2015-II dated 24.03.2022 issued by the 2nd respondent in the Writ Petition are set aside. The Writ Petition is accordingly allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, interlocutory applications, pending if any, shall stand closed.