HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO W.P.No.18184 of 2010 Date:24.08.2010 Between: The Government of Andhra Pradesh Rep.by its Prl. Secretary to Govt. …Petitioner And M.Jeevan Rao and another ….Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO W.P.No.18184 of 2010 ORDER: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice Goda Raghuram, J) Heard the learned Government Pleader for Services- II, for the petitioner. The writ petition is directed against the order of the learned A.P. Administrative Tribunal (Tribunal) dated 31.12.2009 allowing the O.A.No.5732 of 2006, quashing the order of the State Government in G.O.Rt.No.455 Revenue (Vigilance) Department, dated 02.03.2006 finding the first respondent-applicant guilty of the charge of demand and acceptance of illegal gratification and imposing 30% cut in pension permanently. The applicant who retired as a Mandal Revenue Officer filed the application assailing the order of the State in G.O.Rt.No.455, dated 02.03.2006 whereby he was visited with the penalty of 30% cut in pension, under Rule 9 of the A.P. Revised Pension Rules, 1980. The applicant was proceeded against in the departmental inquiry before the A.P. Tribunal for Disciplinary Proceedings (TDP). The TDP by its report dated 28.10.2004 found the applicant not guilty of the charge of demand and acceptance of illegal gratification of Rs.2,000/- from the complainant- Vysyaraju Panduranganadha Raju through the attender- Mungi Krishna Rao. The TDP however observed that the charged officer was not fully exonerated. The charge against the applicant was that he demanded from the complainant Rs.2,000/- for bestowing official favour and that this amount was collected through the office attender. The tainted amount was recovered from the attender and no trap was laid against the applicant. Neither the complainant nor the attender who purportedly received the amount on behalf of the applicant were examined by the TDP. In the post-trap proceedings pertaining to the attender (also proceeded against departmentally), the attender appears to have made a statement that the applicant (respondent herein) was a notoriously corrupt officer and ordered him to accept bribes on his behalf. That statement purportedly made by the attender in the post-trap proceedings initiated against him were rightly rejected by the TDP as not constituting probative evidence for recording a finding of guilt in the disciplinary proceedings. The State Government, however surmised that the complainant would not have tendered Rs.2,000/- through an attendar without demand and on the direction of the Mandal Revenue Officer (the applicant) since the attender by himself had no capacity to dispense any official favour and observed that the conclusion of the TDP that the Mandal Revenue Officer-Charged Officer was not guilty, was therefore, erroneous. The learned Tribunal rightly concluded that while probabilities play an important role in recording guilt in disciplinary proceedings where the rigorous standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt is not required, nevertheless, even the standard of preponderance of probability would not legitimize a conclusion of guilt on mere surmises and conjectures without any probative evidence establishing linkage between the charge and the conclusion. Since neither the complainant nor the attender on whose purported statement the State Government disagreed with the conclusions of the TDP, were examined in the departmental inquiry before the TDP, the conclusion of guilt against the first respondent herein recorded by the Government was a conclusion on the basis of no evidence as rightly held by the Tribunal. We, however, consider an observation apposite in the circumstances the TDP while finding the charged officer (Mandal Revenue Officer) not guilty of the charge of demand and acceptance of illegal gratification however held that the charged officer is not fully exonerated. This observation of the TDP is perverse. The charged officer was arraigned in disciplinary inquiry only for the misconduct of demand and acceptance of illegal gratification. On the factual matrix before the Tribunal, there was no evidence whatsoever to connect him to the charge and therefore, the Tribunal rightly concluded that he was not guilty of the charge. There was no occasion for the Tribunal to observe that he was not fully exonerated or that any residual misconduct was worthy of absolution. The Tribunal’s observation that the charged officer was not fully exonerated is therefore an irrelevant observation. We find no error either in the application of law or in the exercise of discretion by the learned Tribunal warranting interference in judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution. There are no merits in the writ petition. Therefore, the writ petition is dismissed at the stage of admission. No order as to costs. ____________________ GODA RAGHURAM,J ___________________ R. KANTHA RAO,J Date: 24.08.2010 Kvrm/ccm HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO W.P.No.18184 of 2010 (Per Hon’ble GR,J) Date:24.08.2010