THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G.BHAVANI PRASAD WRIT PETITION No.8965 of 2010 ORDER: (Per the Hon’ble Sri Justice Ghulam Mohammed) This writ petition is filed assailing the legality and validity of the order, dated 18.03.2010, passed by the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad, in O.A.No.11913 of 2009, wherein the Tribunal declined to set aside the proceedings issued by the first respondent vide R.No.8137/V3/2003-3, dated 19.01.2009, imposing the punishment of stoppage of two increments with cumulative effect on the petitioner, on the ground that he has directly approached the Tribunal without availing the alternative remedy of appeal under Rule 33 of the A.P.Civil Services (CCCA) Rules. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that the charge framed against the petitioner was vague inasmuch as there were no details about the date of occurrence, time, etc of the said misconduct allegedly committed by the petitioner and that no other persons were examined before the Enquiry Officer. He further contended that the Tribunal having admitted the O.A. and counters were also filed, ought to have adjudicated the matter, instead it committed an error in directing the petitioner to approach the appellate authority. In support of his contention, he has drawn our attention to the judgment of the Supreme Court in Hirday Narain V. I.T. Officer, Bareilly[1], wherein at para No.12 it was held as under: - “An order under Section 35 of the Income-tax Act is not appealable. It is true that a petition to revise the order could be moved before the Commissioner of Income- tax. But Hirday Narain moved a petition in the High Court of Allahabad and the High Court entertained that petition. If the High Court had not entertained his petition, Hriday Narain could have moved the Commissioner in revision because at the date on which the petition was moved the period prescribed by Section 33-A of the Act had not expired. We are unable to hold that because a revision application could have been moved for an order correcting the order of the Income- tax Officer under Section 35, but was not moved, the High Court would be justified in dismissing as not maintainable the petition, which was entertained and was heard on merits.” 3. We have heard the learned Government Pleader for Services-II. 4. The charge alleged against the petitioner is that he has committed grave misconduct inasmuch as he allowed private persons to collect mamools from the crew of the lorry drivers and thus, he failed to maintain absolute integrity in violation of provisions of A.P. Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1964. 5. We are not expressing any opinion on the case, in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Hriday Narain’s case (cited supra) and are also not inclined to delve into the merits and demerits of the case, since pursuant to the judgment rendered by the Supreme Court in Chandra Kumar V. The Union of India and others[2], the Tribunal has to consider the matter at first instance. 6. In the circumstances, the writ petition is allowed and the order, dated 18.03.2010, passed by the A.P. Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad, in O.A.No.11913 of 2009 is hereby set aside and the matter is remitted to the Tribunal and the Tribunal is directed to dispose of the matter afresh, after considering the material on record, on merits. The Tribunal shall dispose of the matter on merits within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 7. Subject to the above directions and observations, the writ petition is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________________________ JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED ____________________________ JUSTICE G.BHAVANI PRASAD 21st April 2010 dr [1] AIR 1971 SC 33 [2] 1995 AIR 1151