THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH & THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR W.P.No.28070 of 2008 O R D E R: (per Hon’ble Sri Justice Vilas V.AfzulPurkar) This writ petition by the State challenges order of the A.P.Administrative Tribunal in O.A.No.5351 of 2007 dated 26.11.2007. By the aforesaid O.A., the respondent herein had challenged the dismissal order passed against him vide G.O.Ms.No.259 Panchayat Raj & Rural Development (VIG.II) Department dated 06.06.2007 and G.O.Ms.No.260 Panchayat Raj & Rural Development (VIG.II) Department dated 06.06.2007. The respondent herein was convicted in ACB case being C.C.No.4 of 1999 on the file of Additional Special Judge for SPE & ACB cases, City Civil Court, Hyderabad under its judgment, dated 18.8.2006. The respondent was convicted for an offence under Section 13(1)(c ) and 13(1)(d) r/w Section 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and under Section 409 IPC and he was convicted for rigorous imprisonment for a period of two yeas and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-. Taking note of his conduct leading to conviction, the State exercised its powers under Rule 25(1) of A.P.Civil Services (Classification, Rules and Appeal) Rules r/w Rule 9 thereof and dismissed the respondent from service. Another Criminal Case C.C.No.5 of 1999 on the file of Additional Special Judge for SPE & ACB cases, City Civil Court, Hyderabad was also instituted against the respondent and he was convicted in the said case also under the same provisions referred to above. In this Criminal Case, he was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-. The Government exercised power under Rule 25(1) and have specifically recorded in paragraph 5 and 6 of the said G.O. as follows: “And whereas, the accused Officer, Sri P.Babu, Deputy Executive Engineer, former incharge Mandal Parishad Development Officer, Lepakshi Mandal, Anantapur district has already been dismissed from service, vide reference fourth read above, on the ground of conduct leading to conviction on a criminal charge by the Court of Additional Special Judge for SPE & ACB Cases, Hyderabad judgment dated 18.8.2006 in C.C.No.4 of 1999. And whereas, there is no bar for two separate criminal/disciplinary proceedings against a public servant, to conclude one after the other. There is no specific bar for recording two separate orders of dismissal as a result of culmination of two separate criminal proceedings, but at one point of time only one order can operate and not both orders”. Questioning the said dismissal orders, the respondent approached the A.P.Administrative Tribunal by the O.A.5351 of 2007 and it was brought to the notice of the Tribunal that against the said convictions, the respondent has already filed Criminal Appeal Nos.1079 of 2006 and 1080 of 2006, dated 30.8.2006 and vide orders of this Court in Crl.A.MP.Nos.1302 of 2006 and 1303 of 2006 dated 13.8.2006 respectively, the sentence has been suspended and he was released on bail. The Tribunal, therefore relied upon the aforesaid suspension of sentence and a judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in W.P.No.16102 of 2007 dated 27.8.2007 and set aside the dismissal order giving liberty to the State to pass appropriate orders against the respondents under Rule 8(2)(b) of the APCS(CC&A) Rules, 1991, if they so desire. The aforesaid order is questioned by the State in this writ petition and by order of this Court dated 24.12.2008 while admitting the writ petition, the impugned order of the Tribunal was suspended. Now a vacate stay petition has been filed by the respondent seeking to vacate the aforesaid order. We have heard both sides. We are of the view that the issue involved in the above writ petition is squarely covered by W.P.No.8000 of 2009 and batch dated 17.11.2009 against the respondent herein. In the said judgment we have elaborately referred to various decisions of the Supreme Court in Dy.Director of Collegiate Education (Admn.) v. S.Nagoor Meera[1], Union of India v. V.K.Bhaskar[2], Union of India v. Ramesh Kumar[3], K.C.Sareen v. CBI[4], Haryana State Coop. Supply & Marketing Federation Ltd. V. N.K.Sharma[5], Noida Entrepreneurs Assn. V Noida[6]. Apart from the above decisions of the Supreme Court, we have also noticed the judgments of the Division Bench of this Court in Municipal Corporation of Guntur v B.Syamala Kumari’s[7] case as well as Chief Rationing Officer v T.V.Rama Sharma’s[8] case, directly covering the issue involved. We have also noticed that the Division Bench judgment in W.P.No.16102 of 2007, dated 27.8.2007, which was followed by the Tribunal under the impugned order being contrary to the above binding decisions of the Supreme Court and the said decisions having not been brought to the notice of the Court that decided W.P.No16102 of 2007. We have also held that the said Division Bench judgment is liable to be declared as per incuriam. Accordingly, the batch of writ petitions filed by the State were allowed and impugned orders of the Tribunal were set aside. Since the present case falls within the facts and circumstances and parameters of the said decision, the writ petition filed by the State also deserves to be allowed and it is accordingly allowed. No costs. ________________ V.ESWARAIAH,J ____________________ VILAS V.AFZULPURKAR,J 8th December, 2009 PNV [1] (1995) 3 SCC 377 [2] (1997) 11 SCC 383 [3] (1997) 7 SCC 514 [4] (2001) 6 SCC 584 [5] 1997 SCC (L&S) 1766 [6] (2007) 10 SCC 385 [7] 2006(6) ALT 771 (DB) [8] 2008(3) ALT 612