IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 8163 of 2009 Between: G.V.S. Naidu S/o. Satyanarayana Andhra Pradesh Special Police, Yousufguda, Hyderabad. R/o. Plot No.85/C, Gayatri Hills, Yousufguda, Hyderabad - 45. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Commandant I Battalion Andhra Pradesh Special Police Yousufguda, Hyderabad. 2 The Deputy Inspector General of Police Andhra Pradesh Special Police Hyderabad. 3 The Inspector General of Police Andhra Pradesh Special Police Battalions Hyderabad. .....RESPONDENT(S) Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to to issue a Writ or order or direction more in the nature of Wit of Mandamus, after calling for the records, by declaring (1) Proceedings Rc.No.A6/OE/65/98-99/DO No.662/99, dated 23-04-1999 of the 1st respondent (2) Proceedings R.O. No.557 / 99 No. 103 / App / A3 / 99, dated 14-12-1999 of the 2nd respondent (3) Proceedings H.O.O. No. 9 / 2003 / No.9 / 2003 / No.61 / Rev. / A3 / 99, dated 18-01-2003 of the 3rd respondent and (4) the orders dated 13-03-2007 passed in O.A. No. 1621 of 2003 on the file of the Hon'ble A.P. Administrative Tribuna, Hyderabad, as illegal, arbitrary and one passed without application of mind and without giving any reasons and consequentially direct respondents to reinstate the petitioner into service as Police Constable with all consequential benefits like payment of arrears of salary, continuity of service, grant of increments, seniority etc., Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.P.V.S.S.S.RAMA RAO Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR SERVICES I The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY W.P. No.8163 of 2009 ORDER: (Per Ghulam Mohammed, J) This writ petition is filed challenging the order dated 13.03.2007 passed by the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad in O.A. No. 1621 of 2003. 2. The petitioner was working as Police Constable at HQ Coy, 1 Battalion, A.P.S.P. On a complaint made by one Smt.A.Vijaya Kumarl wife of A.Jacob, PC 204 on 28.02.1998, a preliminary enquiry was conducted and basing on the preliminary enquiry report, the petitioner was kept under suspension by orders dated 02.06.1998. The complaint was that the petitioner had collected an amount of Rs.20,000/- in the month of February, 1994 for providing a job to one Sri Esupadam, who is relative of the complainant, but he could not secure the job, however, the petitioner had executed a promissory note for Rs.20.000/-. A similar complaint was made by one Smt.K.Krishna Kumari w/o.Vishnu Murthy complaining that the petitioner had obtained a loan of Rs.11,000/- by executing a promissory note but he paid only Rs.1,000/-. Then a charge sheet was issued framing two charges. The petitioner offered his explanation to the said charge sheet. Then the Assistant Commandant I Battalion, APSP. was appointed as an Enquiry Officer. In the meanwhile, the petitioner was reinstated into service by order, dated 18.12.1998. The Enquiry Officer submitted his report on 14.01.1999. Based on the report, a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner and he submitted his explanation. Not being satisfied with the explanation, the first respondent issued proceedings dated 23.04.1999 dismissing the petitioner from the service. The petitioner preferred an appeal and the same was rejected. Against the rejection, the petitioner preferred revision and the revision was also rejected. Challenging the same, the petitioner approached the Tribunal by filing the above O.A. and the Tribunal after taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, has dismissed the O.A. Aggrieved by the order of dismissal, the petitioner filed the present writ petition. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contends that the Tribunal has passed a cryptic order without discussing the facts and circumstances of the case and it is not sustainable under law. The learned counsel contends that the preliminary enquiry conducted by the disciplinary authority discloses that the petitioner had obtained loan by executing a promissory note and therefore, no accusation can be made against the petitioner. The learned counsel contends that the Enquiry Officer ought not to have suggested to the disciplinary authority with regard to the punishment to be imposed on the petitioner. The learned counsel contends that though a detailed explanation was given before passing of the order of dismissal from service, the respondent authorities had not considered the same and that the punishment of dismissal from service imposed on the petitioner is disproportionate to the alleged misconduct. 4. The point that arises for consideration is whether the Tribunal has committed any jurisdictional error. 5. The petitioner while working as Police Constable was suspended basing on the preliminary enquiry report. Thereafter, a regular enquiry was conducted and nine witnesses were examined on oath including the victims, who deposed that the petitioner has demanded and accepted money for securing a job of police constable. Since the petitioner has not cross - examined the witnesses particularly, the victims, the evidence of the victims remained unchallenged and the testimony of the victims cannot be discredited. Since the petitioner has not availed the opportunity of cross-examining the witnesses, the subsequent explanation offered by the petitioner is not useful. The Enquiry Officer relying upon the version of the victims held that the charges are proved. Based on the regular enquiry report, the disciplinary authority has passed the orders imposing the punishment of dismissal from service on the petitioner and the same was confirmed by the appellate authority as well as the revisional authority. In so far as the suggestion of punishment by the Enquiry Officer, is concerned, no doubt he ought not to have suggested the punishment, but that does not vitiate the proceedings. 6. In the circumstances, we do not find any infirmity in the impugned order so as to call for interference by this court in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 7. The writ petition is devoid of merit and the same is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. _____________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED,J _______________________ B.SESHASAYANA REDDY,J 21-04-2009 Stp