IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE THIRTIETH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G.BHAVANI PRASAD WRIT PETITION No. 21585 of 2008 Between: 1 The Government of A.P. Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Transport, Roads and Buildings Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad. 2 The Transport Commissioner, A.P. Hyderabad. ..... PETITIONER(S) AND T. Govardhan Reddy Assistant Motor Vehicles, Inspector, O/o. The RTO, Mahabubnagar, R/ao. Mahabubnagar. .....RESPONDENT 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 to issue a writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Certiorari calling for the records relating to the orders of the Hon'ble A.P. Admn., Tribunal, Hyderabad passed in OA No. 621/2006 dt. 4-6-2007 as being erroneous illegal and unreasonable and quash the same and pass Counsel for the Petitioner:GP FOR SERVICES II Counsel for the Respondent: The Court made the following : O R D E R: (per Hon’ble Sri Justice Ghulam Mohammed) Aggrieved by the order of the A.P. Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad, (for short ‘Tribunal’) in O.A.No.621 of 2006 dated 04-06-2007, setting aside the punishment of reduction of pay by two increments with cumulative eﬀect imposed by the petitioners, they ﬁled the present writ petition. While the respondent was working as Assistant Motor Vehicle Inspector, Hyderabad at Tranport Check Post, Shapur, R.R.District, a surprise check was conducted by the oﬃcials of ACB on 15-12-1998 and he was issued charge memo dated 14-10-1999, which reads as under: “That Sri T.Govardhan Reddy, Assistant Motor Vehicles Inspector, has committed grave misconduct by collecting mamools from the crew of vehicles passing through the Shapur Check post ranging from Rs.10/- to 150/- putting them in fear of harassment on ﬂimsy grounds and thus, he collected an amount of RS.3,240/- from the crew of vehicles on 15-12-1998. Thus, he violated Rule 3(1) and (2) of A.P.Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1964.” An enquiry was held and the enquiry oﬃcer while assessing and analyzing the evidence observed thus: “I have gone through the explanation of the charged oﬃcer and depositions of the witnesses. It is a fact that the personal cash declared by the Tr.Constrable tallied with the amounts found in their presence. The Government cash also tallied with the amount noted in the register. Though there is no direct evidence to show that the Tr. Constable is in the habit of collection of mamools, the events happened at the time of surprise check clearly prove that there is a practice of collection of mamools at the Shapur Check post. Through Sri N.Eswar Chari is an important witness in this case, the ACB has given up his evidence. However, the payments of the amounts voluntarily by the crew of the vehicles and the statement of N.Eswara Chari proves that it is a regular practice to collect mamools at the check post. Therefore, the charge against the constable has to be treated as proved.” The respondent was issued a show cause notice dated 02-01-2002 as to why the punishment, as contemplated under Rule 9 of the APCS (CCA) Rules, should not be imposed for the proved misconduct, for which, a detailed reply was submitted. The disciplinary authority imposed the punishment of reduction of time scale by two stages for a period of two years with cumulative eﬀect on pension and increments, which was conﬁrmed by the appellate authority. The respondents filed the O.A. challenging the same. Petitioners herein ﬁled counter contending that while surprise check proceedings were going on by the check post authorities, the crew of vehicles came to the check post and voluntarily provided some amount along with the documents, that the drivers of 160 vehicles contributed amounts ranging from Rs.10/- to 150/- amounting to Rs.3,240/- and as no proper explanation was given by the respondent for payment made by the crew at the time of raid, charge sheet dated 14-10-1999 was issued and after conducting enquiry, the punishment of reduction of time scale by two stages for a period of two years with cumulative eﬀect on pension and increments was imposed, which was conﬁrmed by the appellate authority. It is also averred, in the counter, that during the surprise check by the ACB authorities, one Sri N.Eswar Chari voluntarily gave a statement that he had been paying Rs.100/- as mamool per day to the check post staﬀ and requested to accept monthly mamool of Rs.5,000/- instead of paying Rs.100/- daily. The Tribunal on elaborate consideration of the evidence on record held that though Sri N.Eswara Chari, is an important witness, the ACB oﬃcials had given up his evidence, that the ﬁndings of the enquiry oﬃcer, relying upon the statement of Sri N.Eswara Chari, without granting opportunity to the respondent-delinquent to cross-examine him, was in violation of principles of natural justice and that the enquiry held against the respondent was bad in law. Learned Government Pleader for Services-II submitted that during surprise check made by the ACB Oﬃcials, the said N.Eswara Chari had voluntarily stated that he had been paying Rs.100/- as mamool per day to the check post staﬀ and only after an enquiry oﬃcer was appointed and had enquired into the allegations made against the respondent, charge memo was issued and the disciplinary authority had imposed the punishment, which was conﬁrmed by the appellate authority. She further submits that the Tribunal erred in setting aside the punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority on the ground that the respondent-delinquent was not aﬀorded opportunity to cross-examine Sri N.Eswara Chari inasmuch as the ACB Oﬃcials had taken into account the statement made by Sri N.Eswara Chari that it was the regular practice to collect mamools at the check post. Except the statement made by Sri N.Eswara Chari, there is no other incriminating material against the respondent to hold him guilty of the charge of collecting mamools from the crew of vehicles passing through the Shapur Check post, but, however, the said witness was not cross-examined by the delinquent. Since no direct evidence was available to the authorities, they could not have imposed the punishment of reduction of time scale by two stages for a period of two years with cumulative eﬀect on pension and increments. In the circumstances, the Tribunal was justiﬁed in setting aside the punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority as confirmed by the appellate authority. We do not ﬁnd any error in the order of the Tribunal. The Writ Petition fails and is, accordingly, dismissed. No costs. However, the petitioners are at liberty to initiate action afresh in accordance with law, if they so desire. _________________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED,J ______________________ G.BHAVANI PRASAD ,J Dt:30-09-2008 usd To 1 The Principal Secretary to Government, Home Department, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Secretariat, Hyderabad. 2 The Director General and Inspector General of Police, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad. 3 The Addl. Director General of Police, C.I.D., Hyderabad. 4 Two CCs to GP for Services-I, High Court Buildings, Hyderabad (OUT). 5 Two CD copies