THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR Writ Petition No.23440 of 2009 Date : 02-11-2009 Between : The Superintendent of Police, Khammam District, Khammam & two othes .. Petitioners And G.Venkateswarlu .. Respondent THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR Writ Petition No.23440 of 2009 ORDER : (per VVA, J.) The respondents in O.A.No.6758 of 2003 before the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad, question the final order of the Tribunal, dated 24-06-2009, in this Writ Petition. By the aforesaid O.A., the respondent herein has challenged the proceedings in the disciplinary enquiry, where a punishment of reduction in time scale by two stages for a period of two years with effect on future increments and pension was imposed and the period of suspension was also directed to be treated as not on duty vide proceedings of the disciplinary authority in C.No.29/PR/98 in D.O.No.1319/2001, dated 06-09- 2001. The respondent preferred an appeal against the said order before the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Warangal Range, and the said appeal was dismissed vide proceedings No.206/APP/2001 in R.O.No.54/2003, dated 26-01-2003. The respondent questioned the said order of appellate authority by filing a revision before the Additional Director General of Police (Administration), Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad, which was also dismissed vide proceedings Tdis.No.778/Appeal-1/2003, dated 08-08-2003. Questioning the said original, appellate and revisional order, the respondent had filed the present O.A. before the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad. One of the questions, which fell for consideration before the Tribunal was whether the finding of the Enquiry Officer that misconduct as alleged against the respondent herein is proved on consideration of the entire material and on that the tribunal came to the conclusion that there is no evidence in support of the alleged misconduct and consequently the Tribunal found that the penalty imposed on the respondent herein is not justifiable and exonerated him from the said charge and consequently his suspension was directed to be treated as on duty. Questioning the aforesaid order, the present Writ Petition is filed. We have heard the learned Government Pleader for Services-I, who has placed before us the evidence recorded during the enquiry and contended that the incident based on which the charge is framed relates to the complaint of one, K.Koteswaramma, who had stated during the preliminary enquiry that the respondent herein had committed alleged misconduct. However, the said complainant changed her version during the enquiry that the respondent herein had not committed alleged misconduct. Learned Government Pleader for Services-I submits that irrespective of the same, there is sufficient other evidence, which was in the form of statements of the Teacher, who was a tenant residing in the said house and the Head Constable and Constables, who had initially recorded the complaint and had enquired into the matter. We have examined the said statements and particularly the statement of the complainant. As the Tribunal has rightly found the misconduct alleged has to be proved during the domestic enquiry, the statement of the complainant during the domestic enquiry is with complete variance from the statement as said to have been recorded during the preliminary enquiry. The said complainant was examined as P.W.8 during the disciplinary enquiry and her statement as follows was noted in the enquiry report. “P.W.8:: Smt.K.Koteswaramma, wife of Venakteswarlu, Mustafanagar, Khammam, deposed that she was differing with the earlier statement on which she has put her thumb impression, dated 26-05-1998. She also deposed that C.I., DCRB in a fully drunken state, caught hold her hand on that day. She further stated that she never saw the charged officer constable earlier.” The evidence of the said eyewitness does not support the basic misconduct alleged against the respondent. The other witnesses, who were examined during the domestic enquiry have admittedly not witnessed to the alleged misconduct and they speak only of the circumstances, which occurred after the alleged misconduct. The evidence of other witnesses, therefore, has hardly any probative value in support of the misconduct as alleged. As there is no other evidence in the domestic enquiry, the reliance by the authorities on the statement of the complainant during the preliminary enquiry and the punishment imposed based thereon is therefore not justified. The Tribunal has rightly found that the complainant’s version during preliminary enquiry cannot be a substitute for evidence before the disciplinary enquiry and as such in the absence of any evidence, the punishment imposed on the respondent was found to be unsubstantiated and accordingly the findings of the Enquiry Officer were clearly based on conjunctures and was perverse and rightly rejected by the Tribunal. Consequently, therefore, the Tribunal was justified in setting aside the orders of punishment and exonerating the respondent from all charges. We are not able to discern any factual or legal infirmity in the appreciation by the Tribunal. The Writ Petition is, therefore, devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _________________ V.ESWARAIAH, J. __________________________ VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J. 02nd November, 2009. skmr