IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE 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 : 18198 of 2007 Between: 1 The Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Secretary to Government, Industries and Commerce Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad. 2 The Director of Mines and Geology, A.P., Hyderabad. ..... PETITIONER(S) AND J.P. Ratnakar Wood H.No.1-11-183/2/3, Shamlal Buildings, Begumpet, Hyderabad. .....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 and connected with the orders made in O.A.No.3246/2003, dt. 15.9.2006 and to quash or set aside the same by holding as erroneous and contrary to law and pass such other order or orders. Counsel for the Petitioner:GP FOR SERVICES I Counsel for the Respondent No.: . The Court made the following : HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU Writ Petition No.18198 of 2007 ORDER: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice Ghulam Mohammed) This writ petition is filed seeking to quash the order dated 15-9-2006 passed in O.A.No.3246 of 2003 on the file of Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, whereunder Tribunal allowed the O.A. and set aside G.O.Ms.No.137 dated 17-05-2003 dismissing the applicant from service. 2. The details necessary for adjudicating the issue raised in the writ petition are that the respondent is the applicant in the above O.A., while the petitioners herein are the respondents therein. The applicant, while working as Assistant Director in the Department of Mines and Geology, was dismissed from service alleging that he had indulged in corruption and acquired the assets disproportionate to the known sources of income. The Anti-Corruption Bureau had registered a case under Section 13 (2) read with Section 13(1)(e) of Prevention of Corruption Act, and after investigation, it appears there was no sufficient evidence and a final report was filed. Thereafter, the Government issued G.O.Ms.No.427 dated 22-12-1993 referring the case to the Tribunal for Disciplinary Proceedings (TDP) and the same was numbered as TEC No.2 of 1994. The Tribunal after considering evidence of 14 witnesses and 56 documents produced by the department, exonerated the applicant of all the charges. The Government disagreed with the findings of the TDP and issued G.O.Ms.No.137 dated 17-5-2003 imposing the punishment of dismissal from service. 3. Heard learned Government Pleader for Services-I and learned counsel for the respondent. 4. It is seen from the record that the Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB) had registered a case under the Prevention of Corruption Act against the applicant and conducted investigation. But, the ACB did not find sufficient evidence to prosecute the applicant in the Court of law, and submitted a report to that effect. However, the applicant was put on defence before the TDP. The TDP after considering the material on record, categorically held that there is no sufficient documentary evidence. The Administrative Tribunal also found that there are no material particulars placed before it to differ with the findings recorded by TDP and the Government ought not to have taken up the matter and passed G.O.Ms.No.137 dated 17-05-2003. Further, it was found that the charges are vague and not supported by any documentary evidence. 5. Apart from the above, there is inordinate delay on the part of the Government at every stage; the Government has taken three years to refer the matter to TDP; three years after submission of report by TDP, the Government disagreed with its findings vide Memo dated 26- 2-1999, which was communicated to the delinquent official and two years after submission of the explanation, the impugned G.O. was issued. Thus, there are laches on the part of the Government and the delay would obviously cause prejudice to the delinquent official. 6. In the above circumstances, the Tribunal has rightly set aside the G.O. imposing the punishment of dismissal from service on the applicant. The writ petition is liable to be and is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. __________________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J. ___________________ C.V.RAMULU, J. 03-07-2008 bsc