THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION NO.14964 OF 2004 Dated 18th September, 2009 Between: Mohammed Ghori …Petitioner And The Regional Passport Officer and another …Respondents The Court made the following O R D E R: In this writ petition, the petitioner seeks to declare letter dated 24.05.2004, issued by the first respondent-Regional Passport Officer, as illegal and arbitrary, and to consequently direct the respondents to issue passport to him. The petitioner submitted an application on 21.01.2004 for issuance of passport under the provisions of the Passport Act, 1967 (for short “the Act”). On the ground that the second respondent- Commissioner of Police, Hyderabad has not recommended his case for issuance of passport, the petitioner was not issued passport. The petitioner worked as Sub-Inspector of Police in the Central Crime Station. Disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him on the charge that he accepted illegal gratification of Rs.40,000/- from the accused in Crime No.327 of 1998 on the file of the Central Crime Station. On the proven misconduct in the disciplinary proceedings, he was removed from service. Taking into consideration, the said order of removal, the second respondent, vide his letter dated 28.04.2004, has informed the petitioner that the misconduct, which is alleged against him and proved in the departmental proceedings, amounts to moral turpitude and attracts the provisions of Section 6(2)(i) of the Act. Aggrieved by the order of removal, the petitioner approached Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal questioning the said order in O.A.No.1461 of 2005. The Tribunal, by its order, dated 19.02.2008, has allowed the O.A by setting aside the order of removal, directing the respondents therein to issue consequential order restoring the petitioner to service. In paragraph 21 of the order, the Tribunal recorded its findings, which read as under- “In view of the reasons stated supra, the findings of the appellate authority, disciplinary and enquiry authority cannot stand. No reasonable man in the circumstances of the case would have reached a finding that the charge is proved in the light of the material point out regarding inconsistency between the evidence and charge. Therefore, I have no hesitation to say that the misconduct covered by charge isnot proved by any reliable evidence and it is the case of no evidence and misreading of the evidence. Therefore, I find that the orders of the disciplinary authority finding the applicant guilt of misconduct covered by charge is bad under law and liable to be set aside. It is not necessary to answer point No.2 in view of the finding given on point No.1.” Though it appears from the averments in the counter-affidavit and the supporting material annexed to the counter-affidavit that the sole basis for not issuing passport to the petitioner is based on the proceedings of removal ordered against him, as much as the said order is already set aside by the Tribunal in O.A.No.1461 of 2005, wherein the evidence adduced on behalf of the respondents to prove the misconduct alleged against the petitioner was not accepted, the matter of issuance of passport requires reconsideration, in view of the findings recorded by the Tribunal. Therefore, the impugned letter is hereby quashed and the first respondent is directed to consider the application of the petitioner afresh for issuance of passport to him. It is needless to observe that such consideration shall be in accordance with the provisions of the Act and the Rules framed thereunder. The writ petition is, accordingly, allowed. No order as to costs. ____________________ R.SUBHASH REDDY, J Dated 18th September, 2009 vrn