IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD TUESDAY, THE 9TH DAY OF MARCH, TWO THOUSAND AND TEN HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD Writ Petition No.5168 of 2010 Between: P. Devija Naik .. Petitioner And The Director General of Police, A.P., Hyderabad and others .. Respondents ORDER: (per Justice Ghulam Mohammed) We have heard Sri D. Linga Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Services-I for the respondents. 2. Assailing the order of the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad (for short “the Tribunal”) in O.A. No.2588 of 2007, dated 07-04-2009, confirming the orders of the Commissioner of Police, Hyderabad City in D.O.No.1261 No.L&O/B3/1868/2001, dated 04-05-2005 and the orders of the appellate authority i.e. the Director General of Police, Andhra Pradesh in T.Dis.No.966/Appeal-2/2005, dated 29-05-2006 imposing punishment of dismissal from service, the petitioner filed the writ petition seeking to issue writ of certiorari. 3. The background of the writ petition is that the petitioner was appointed as police constable on 05-12-1992 and while working as such in ‘A’ Coy CAR Head Quarters, Hyderabad, he was placed under suspension vide proceedings dated 23-08-2001 of the 3rd respondent for his alleged attempt to extort money, watch and ring from one Sri P. Suresh in Sanjeevaiah park, Secunderabad by disclosing his identity as police officer on the threat of booking a criminal case against the victim and later a case in Crime No.149 of 2001 of Ramgopalpet police station was registered against him for the offence punishable under Sections 384 and 511 of the Indian Penal Code. Thereafter a charge memo was issued to him on 12-09-2001. When he was acquitted in the criminal case C.C. No.1183 of 2001 on the file of XI Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Secunderabad, his suspension was revoked on 04-03-2004 pending disciplinary proceedings. In the disciplinary enquiry, the charge framed against him was not proved. Disagreeing with the findings of the enquiry officer, the 3rd respondent issued a dissent note dated 03-11-2004 for which he submitted a detailed representation on 20-11-2004 stating, among other things, that there is no evidence to connect him to the alleged misconduct, that too after he was acquitted in the criminal case. But without considering the effect of the judgment in the criminal case and the reasons given by the enquiry officer, the 3rd respondent by his order dated 04-05-2005 imposed the punishment of dismissal from service treating his suspension period as ‘not duty’. Aggrieved thereby, he preferred an appeal before the 1st respondent, who simply rejected it without considering and adverting to the grounds raised therein. There upon, he filed O.A. No.2588 of 2007 before the Tribunal and the Tribunal by its orders dated 07-04-2009 upheld the orders of 3rd and 1st respondents. Hence, the writ petition. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that the appellate authority did not assign any reasons for rejecting the appeal and made only a cryptic order, which reads as follows: “There is no place in the police department for persons with a criminal bent of mind or for those indulging in a criminal act. The appeal is rejected.” He submitted that the appeal has to be considered on merits adverting to the grounds raised therein. 5. In the circumstances, since the appeal preferred by the petitioner against the orders of the disciplinary authority is a statutory appeal under relevant rules and as the same is not considered on merits, we deem it appropriate to remit the matter back to the 1st respondent for fresh disposal on merits. 6. Therefore, the order of the 1st respondent in T.Dis.No.966/Appeal-2/2005 dated 29-05-2006, which was confirmed in O.A. No.2588 of 2007 on the file of the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad, dated 07-04-2009, is set aside and the said appeal is remitted back to the 1st respondent-Director General of Police, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad for fresh decision on merits in accordance with law after every reasonable opportunity to the petitioner. 7. The writ petition is ordered accordingly. No costs. _____________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J _____________________ G. BHAVANI PRASAD, J Date: 09-03-2010 Svv