THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED and THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G.BHAVANI PRASAD W.P.No.10142 of 2010 ORDER: (Per Sri Justice Ghulam Mohammed, J) This writ petition is filed assailing the order dated 23.03.2009 passed by the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad (for short ‘the Tribunal’) partly allowing O.A.No.7351 of 2002 filed by the petitioner challenging the proceedings dated 14.03.2000 and 13.09.2000 issued by the 2nd and 3rd respondents respectively. 2. The brief facts of the case are as follows; When the petitioner was working as Police Constable in L & O I Town Police Station, Visakhapatnam, an enquiry was initiated against him on the ground that he forcibly collected money from the public and took into possession a Bullet Motor Cycle without obtaining permission. The Enquiry Officer vide his report, dated 30.10.1998, found the petitioner not guilty of the charges framed against him, whereas the disciplinary authority-2nd respondent differed with the findings of the Enquiry Officer on the ground that P.W.5 has clearly deposed that the petitioner extorted money from him and therefore, imposed on him the punishment of reduction in the time scale of pay by two stages with adverse effect by treating the period of suspension as ‘not on duty’, vide proceedings, dated 14.03.2000, which were challenged by him by filing an appeal before the 3r d respondent, who in turn rejected the same vide proceedings, dated 13.09.2000. Challenging all these proceedings, the petitioner filed O.A.No.7351 of 2002 before the Tribunal, which in turn allowed the same in part, modifying the punishment of reduction in the time scale of pay by two stages with cumulative effect by treating the period of suspension as ‘on duty’ for the purpose of seniority, pension etc., and observed that the petitioner is not entitled to any other monetary benefits except the subsistence allowance. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed the present writ petition. . 3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Services-I 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that the disciplinary authority failed to give the reasons of its differing with the findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer in the enquiry report, wherein it was clearly stated that except PW5, other witnesses did not support the articles of charge. He also contended that the Tribunal having held that the punishment imposed on the petitioner for the proven charge is excessive, ought to have set aside the same instead of modifying it. 5. Learned Government Pleader for Services-I contended that the Enquiry Officer having recorded a finding that charge No.4 is proved, held that the other charges are not proved and accordingly, found the petitioner not guilty of the charges and that the disciplinary authority after taking into consideration the evidence of P.W5, who has clearly stated that the petitioner extorted money from him, differed with the findings of the Enquiry Officer and imposed the punishment, which was also modified by the Tribunal and therefore, there is no need to interfere with the order impugned. 6. A perusal of the order impugned, it clearly shows that in the enquiry report, it was stated that except P.W.5, all other witnesses did not support the articles of charge in the cross-examination though they gave evidence in chief-examination in support of the articles of charge. The disciplinary authority after taking into consideration the evidence of P.W.5 with regard to identity of the petitioner and the evidence of other witnesses regarding the incident, differed with the findings of the Enquiry Officer and held that the charges are proved against the petitioner and imposed on him the punishment of reduction in the time scale of pay by two stages with cumulative effect by treating the period of suspension as ‘not on duty’. The appeal filed by the petitioner was also rejected, but the Tribunal having held that the punishment imposed on the petitioner is little excessive, modified the same as specified supra. 7. Inasmuch as the disciplinary and the appellate authorities have gone through the evidence of the witnesses and imposed the punishment, which was modified by the Tribunal, this Court cannot go into the veracity of the enquiry. However, the punishment was modified by the Tribunal reducing the time scale of pay by two stages with cumulative effect by treating the period of suspension as ‘on duty’ for the purpose of seniority, pension etc. In view of the same, we do not find any illegality or irregularity in the order impugned warranting interference by this Court. 8. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. _____________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J _____________________ G.BHAVANI PRASAD, J Date:30.04.2010. sj