IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU WRIT PETITION NO : 15838 of 2008 Between: Alle Srinivas S/o.Deverajan at O/o.D.T.C Karimnagar Vavilalapalli, Karimnagar District ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Government of A.P rep.by its Principal Secretary Transport Department A.P.Secretariat,Saifabad Hyderabad 2 The Transport Commissioner A.P Transport Bhavan Hyderabad .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Aﬃdavit ﬁled herein the High Court will be pleased to issue a writ or direction more particularly in the nature of writ of Mandamus set aside the order of the A.P Administrative Tribunal In O.A No.1427/2008 Dt.22-1- 2007 and consequently quashing the proceedings /memo bearing No.16563/Vig.III.2/03-2, Dt.5-8-2005 passed by the Respondent herein and the proceedings in Rc No.15053/V4/V3/98 Dt.26-7-2003 of the 2nd respondent as illegal and arbitrary un constitutional and principles of natural justice. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.S.R.SANKU & KAVITI MURLI KRISNA Counsel for the Respondent: GP FOR SERVICES II The court made the following order: THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED AND THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU Writ Petition No.15838 of 2008 ORDER:(per Hon’ble Sri Justice Ghulam Mohammed) This writ petition is ﬁled seeking a writ of Mandamus to set aside the order, dated 22.01.2007, passed by the A.P.Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad in O.A.No.1427 of 2007 and consequently to quash the proceedings, dated 05.08.2005 and 26.07.2003, issued by the respondents. The facts, which are necessary for disposing of the writ petition, are as follows. The petitioner was appointed as Assistant Motor Vehicles Inspector in Zone-V comprising Adilabad, Karimnagar, Warangal and Khammam on 19.03.1994. While the petitioner was working at Palavancha, Khammam District, a surprise check was conducted by the Oﬃcials of the Anti Corruption Bureau (ACB) over the Transport Check Post, Palvancha. Consequent to the investigation by the ACB, the following charge was framed against the petitioner. “That he (the petitioner herein) is collecting mamools from lorry drivers through a private person by name Sri K.Rajeshwar, S/o.Bhumeshwar, who collected Rs.2,485/- from lorry drivers as mamools on 19.09.1998.” The petitioner submitted his explanation to the Deputy Transport Commissioner, who was the Enquiry Oﬃcer, denying the charge. Thereafter, the Enquiry Oﬃcer conducted enquiry and held that the charge is not proved, but the disciplinary authority differed from the findings of the Enquiry Oﬃcer and issued a show-cause notice, dated 29.07.2002. Pursuant thereto, the petitioner submitted his explanation and eventually, the petitioner was awarded a punishment of reduction in time scale by one level for six years vide proceedings, dated 26.07.2003. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner preferred an appeal to the Government, which in turn dismissed the appeal vide orders, dated 05.08.2005. Challenging the same, the petitioner preferred the above O.A. The Tribunal, after considering the matter at length and referring to catena of judgments of the Supreme Court relied on by the petitioner, held that the charge against the petitioner is clear and unambiguous and observed that the Enquiry Oﬃcer was under the impression that strict rules of evidence are applicable to the disciplinary proceedings and has gone to the extent of giving a ﬁnding that the Presenting Oﬃcer failed to produce the main witness Sri K.Rajeshwar who is said to be indulged in collecting mamools from the lorry drivers. It is also observed that Sri K.Rajeshwar has given prevaricate statements and ACB Oﬃcials have recovered an amount of Rs.2,485/- from the said K.Rajeshwar. However, the Enquiry Oﬃcer has given clean chit in spite of the fact that there is enough material available on record. It is, therefore, held that the disciplinary authority has rightly diﬀered with the report of the Enquiry Oﬃcer exercising the powers under Rule 21 of the APCS (CC&A) Rules and passed an order under sub-Rule (4) and (5) of Rule 21 of the APCS (CC&A) Rules. The Tribunal has also observed that it is a settled principle of law reiterated from time and again by the Supreme Court that strict rules of evidence are not applicable in disciplinary proceedings. Accordingly, the Tribunal dismissed the O.A. Aggrieved by the said order of the Tribunal, the petitioner is before this Court. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the Tribunal failed to appreciate that the very enquiry itself is vitiated on account of non-examining Sri K.Rajeshwar who was allegedly collecting mamools on behalf of the petitioner. It is also contended that the Tribunal failed to appreciate that the disciplinary authority wrongly diﬀered with the ﬁndings of the Enquiry Oﬃcer on the ground that strict rules of evidence are not applicable to the disciplinary proceedings. Hence, he sought for setting aside the order in the O.A., and consequently, the order of the disciplinary authority. On the other hand, the learned Government Pleader for Services-II, sought to sustain the order of the Tribunal contending that the Tribunal has rightly upheld the orders of the appellate authority and the disciplinary authority, and there are no grounds warranting interference of this Court. Heard the learned counsel for both the parties. The petitioner, who was working as Assistant Motor Vehicles Inspector, was imposed with a punishment of reduction in time scale by one level for six years by the disciplinary authority on the ground that he was collecting mamools from the lorry drivers. On appeal, the appellate authority also conﬁrmed the same. The main contention urged by the petitioner is that the key-witness to the incident was not examined and the disciplinary authority erroneously differed with the ﬁndings of the Enquiry Oﬃcer and imposed punishment on the ground that strict rules of evidence are not applicable to the disciplinary proceedings. However, it is time and again reiterated by the Supreme Court that strict rules of evidence are not applicable in disciplinary proceedings. Therefore, the non-examination of K.Rajeshwar, who said to have collected mamools on behalf of the petitioner, cannot be said to be fatal in a domestic enquiry like this. In the above circumstances, it cannot be said that the ﬁndings of the Tribunal are erroneous or perverse. The ﬁndings of the Tribunal are based on the material available on record and therefore, interference of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is unwarranted. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs. _________________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J _______________ C.V.RAMULU, J Dt.23.07.2008 VGB