THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO W.P.NO.12829 of 2010 21-06-2010 BETWEEN; G.Harinath Babu ...Petitioner vs. Government of A.P rep. By its Secretary, Panchayat Raj & Rural Development, Hyderabad and others ...Respondents THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO W.P.NO. 12829 of 2010 ORAL ORDER: (Per GR,J) The order dated 20-11-2009 of the learned A.P. Administrativ Tribunal (Tribunal) in O.A.No.6144 of 2007 is assailed by the applican who is the petitioner. The applicant was serving as an Executive Officer in a Gram Panchayat. A trap was laid on allegation of demand and acceptance o illegal gratification of Rs.2,500/- from one Kothavari Ramu for extendin official favour in sanctioning the bill amount for a contract entered int between Kothavari Ramu and the Gram Panchayat. A.C.B registered case of demand and acceptance of illegal gratification and the petitione was placed under suspension pending inquiry on 27-10-2003, consequen on the trap. However, for the reasons best known the petitioner was no prosecuted under provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act and th State considered it appropriate to initiate departmental inquiry against him before the Tribunal for Disciplinary Proceedings (TDP). The TDP on a elaborate inquiry, by its order dated 27-12-2005 in TEC No.74 of 200 recorded a finding of guilt on the charge that “ while working as Panchaya Secretary, Ibrahimpatnam Gram Panchayat, Krishna District actuated b corrupt motive and in abuse of official position on 10-01-2003 demande an amount of Rs.2,500/- as bribe from the complainant Sri K.Ramu fo sanctioning the bill for Rs.1,06,682/- pertaining to execution of paintin work of Village Secretariat Office Building and accepted the said amoun at about 8.25 A.M on 05-02-2003.” The TDP on the basis of its conclusion of the guilt of the petitione recommended “dismissal from service”. The State Government vid G.O.Ms.No.300, Panchayat Raj & Rural Development (Vig.IV) Departmen dated 03-07-2007 imposed on the petitioner of penalty of dismissal from service. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner preferred O.A.No.6144 of 200 before the Tribunal. The Tribunal by the order impugned herein rejected the O.A b holding that the TDP after considering the entire material placed before and after examining eight (8) witnesses, analysing 24 documents filed b the prosecution as well as EXs.D-1 to D-3 had concluded that th applicant had demanded and accepted illegal gratification and therefor no case was made out for a review of the TDP’s conclusion. We concur with the assessment of the Tribunal. There are n infirmities in the application of law, the assessment of evidence, th conclusions recorded or the recommendations made as to the quantum o punishment to be visited on the petitioner, by the TDP and there is no erro in the acceptance of the report by the State Government while visiting th petitioner with the penalty of dismissal from service. There is also n infirmity in the order of Tribunal rejecting O.A.No.6144 of 2007 of th petitioner. On the aforesaid analysis, no case is made out for interference. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed at the stage of admission No order as to costs. ______________ GODA RAGHURAM,J ______________ R.KANTHA RAO,J 21st JUNE 2010. TSNR