IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO : 3647 of 2010 Between: Munipalli Satyadev S/o Venkateswarlu ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Government of Andhra Pradesh represented by its Principal Secretary and four others .....RESPONDENT(S) ORDER: (Per Sri Justice GHULAM MOHAMMED) This Writ Petition has been filed challenging the order dated 15.10.2009 passed by the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad in O.A. No. 1171 of 2009 as illegal and consequently set aside the proceedings of the second respondent dated 9.3.2009. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner joined the Police Department and was promoted as Assistant Sub Inspector and presently he is working in Special Branch Department, Guntur. While so, one Challa Srinivas Reddy of Karlapadu Village, Piduguralla Mandal, Guntur District lodged a complaint before the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Vijayawada on 15.2.2009 alleging that the petitioner herein demanded Rs. 2000/- for responding positively to complete the enquiry in issuance of passport. Based on the said complaint a trap was arranged on 17.2.2009 at Plat Form No. 21 in NTR Bus Complex, Guntur and it is alleged that in the said trap the petitioner received Rs. 2000/- from the complainant and a mediators report was prepared and pursuant to that ACB, Vijayawada Range, Vijayawada registered a case in Crime No. 4/RCT-ACB, Vijayawada/2009 under Section 7(f) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 of ACB, Vijayawada Range, Vijayawada dated 18.2.2009. Pursuant to which, the second respondent issued proceedings dated 9.3.2009 suspending the petitioner and the petitioner offered explanation on 5.6.2009 and the same is still pending. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner approached the Tribunal and the Tribunal dismissed the O.A. Aggrieved by the same, the present Writ Petition has been filed. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that since it is a ACB case there is no material to prove that the petitioner demanded money. The respondents unnecessarily prolonging the matter, as the explanation offered by the petitieonr on 5.6.2009 to the proceedings issued by the second respondent dated 9.3.2009 is still pending. On the other hand, the learned Government Pleader contended that since it is a case of ACB trap, evidence has to be taken from various agencies. He has drawn our attention to the judgment reported in SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT AND ANOTHER VS. K. MUNNIAPPAN[1], the relevant portion of which reads as under: “ We are unable to agree with the learned counsel. It is seen that the Tribunal erroneously has proceeded on the ;premise that the Government has no power to keep an employee under suspension pending enquiry or investigation. Rule 17(e)(1) itself postulates that an officer would be kept under suspension where “enquiry into grave charges is contemplated”. Under these circumstances, actual pendency is not a precondition to suspend an officer. Pending further investigation into the offences is one of the grounds. Unless and until an in-depth investigation is done, there would be little scope to identify the persons involved in the crimes and to take follow up action as per law .” We have heard the learned counsel appearing for both the parties and perused the material made available on record. As seen from the record, the Tribunal while dismissing the O.A observed as under:- “The impugned order is assailed on the ground that the applicant was falsely implicated in the said case. But, that is not the purview of judicial review. That has to be decided by the Criminal Court when the Criminal case is filed against the applicant or in the departmental enquiry, if any, initiated against him. So there is no illegality or irregularity in the impugned order of suspension, and there is no prima facie case. So the application is dismissed at the admission stage” In view of the above, this Court cannot empower to sit as an appellate authority and examine the adequacy or inadequacy of the evidence and the same is to be exercised by the disciplinary authority. This Court, in case where the punishment imposed is highly excessive and there are procedural irregularities while conducting the enquiry and the principles of natural justice have not been followed, may invoke the doctrine of proportionality. The Tribunal has gone through the evidence and rightly dismissed the OA confirming the orders impugned therein. Therefore, we find no illegality or irregularity in the order impugned warranting interference by this Court. The Writ Petition fails and is, accordingly, dismissed. No order as to costs. _____________________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J ______________________________ SANJAY KUMAR , J Dt. 19.02.2010 KA ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 2 CD copies [1] (1997) 4 SCC 255