IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.C. BHANU WRIT PETITION No.3653 of 2008 Between: B. Nagabhushanam S/o Late B. Appalaswamy Mampa Police Station, Koyyuru Circle, Visakhapatnam District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep by its Principal Secretary, Home (SC.A) Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad. 2 The Director General & Inspector General of Police, Government of Andhra Pradesh Hyderabad. 3 Deputy Inspector General of Police Visakhapatnam Range, Visakhapatnam. 4 The Superintendent of Police, Visakhapatnam District. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed herein the High Court may be pleased to issue Writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the order dated 14-02-2008 passed in O.A. No.1304/2008 by the Hon'ble A.P. Administrative Tribunal ordering notice before admission instead of granting interim order and the action of the 1st respondent in not considering the explanation dated 05-09-2005 submitted by the petitioner and issuing the order in G.O.Ms.No.293 Home (SC.A) Department dated 15-12-2007 dismissing the petitioner from service as illegal arbitrary and against principles of natural justice and consequently set aside the order in G.O.M.S.No.293 Home (SC.A) Department, dated 15.12.2007 issued by the first respondent. THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.C. BHANU WRIT PETITION No.3653 of 2008 ORAL ORDER: (per the Hon’ble Sri Justice K.C.Bhanu,J) This writ petition is filed challenging the order dated 14.02.2008 passed by the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad, in O.A.No.1304 of 2008, in ordering notice before admission instead of granting interim order. Petitioner herein was working as Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police at Narsipatnam Police Station, Visakhapatnam District. On the allegation that he demanded and accepted bribe of Rs.1500/- from one K.Prabhakara Rao, charge was framed against the petitioner under Section 2(b) of APCS (DPT) Rules, 1989. Thereafter, after enquiry, the Tribunal for Disciplinary Proceedings, (hereafter referred to as “the Tribunal”) submitted a report to the Government stating that the charge against the petitioner is proved. On receipt of the report of the Tribunal, the first respondent furnished a copy of the same to the petitioner and issued a Memo to the petitioner asking him to submit explanation within fifteen days from the date of receipt of the Memo. As no explanation was received from the petitioner within the stipulated time, the first respondent-Government issued G.O.Ms.No.293, Home (SC.A) Department, dated 15.12.2007, dismissing the petitioner from service. Challenging the same, the petitioner filed O.A.No.1304 of 2008 before the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal. Now his grievance is that the Administrative Tribunal ordered notice before admission, but not granted any interim order. Hence, this writ petition. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Services-I. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner received the memo along with the copy of the report on 26.08.2005 and he sent his explanation on 05.09.2005 to the first respondent through proper channel i.e,. through Mampa police station, and therefore, he is not at fault, however, the first respondent has not considered his explanation and issued the said Government Order dismissing him from service. The learned Government Pleader for Services-I contended that the disciplinary authority has not received the explanation of the petitioner and therefore, construing that the petitioner has no explanation to offer, issued the said Government Order. The factual matrix of the case is not seriously disputed. Though the petitioner has given explanation through proper channel, it seems the same has not reached the disciplinary authority. Therefore, the first respondent proceeded further. It is not the case of non-giving explanation by the petitioner. Therefore, the Government has to pass necessary orders after considering the explanation of the petitioner. Hence, the writ petition is allowed and consequently, O.A.No.1304 of 2008 filed by the petitioner is allowed and the first respondent is directed to pass necessary orders in accordance with law, taking into consideration the explanation offered by the petitioner. No costs. ______________ (D.S.R.VARMA, J) _____________ (K.C.BHANU, J) 28th February 2008. Sh