IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TWLFTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH WRIT PETITION NO : 26096 of 2007 Between: 1 The Commissioner of Police, Hyderabad. 2 The Addl.Director General of Police, (Admn.) Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad City. .....PETITIONERS AND K.Venkateshwar Rao, PC 6561 of Mahankali Police Station, Hyderabad City. .....RESPONDENT 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 issue an appropriate writ or direction more particularly one in the nature of "writ of certiorari", calling for the records relating to and connected with order in O.A.No.9916 of 2002, dt.03-5-2006 on the file of the Hon'ble Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad and to quash the same as erroneous and contrary to law. Counsel for the Petitioners:GP FOR SERVICES I Counsel for the Respondent: MR. K.R. SRINIVAS. The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE Smt. JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. CHANDRIAH W.P. No. 26096 of 2007 O R D E R: (Per THE HON’BLE Smt. JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI) This writ petition is filed against the order dated 3.5.2006 passed by the A.P. Administrative Tribunal in O.A. No. 9916 of 2002. By the impugned order, the Tribunal set aside the proceedings dated 5.11.1997 issued by the 1st petitioner herein which were confirmed in appeal and in review by the 2nd petitioner herein. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. The proceedings impugned in the O.A. relate to reduction in time scale of pay by one stage for a period of one year with effect on future increments and pension and treating the period of suspension from 20.11.1996 to 10.8.1997 as ‘not on duty’. The ground taken by the Tribunal for setting aside the proceedings impugned in the O.A. is that the charge framed by the Criminal Court and the charge framed in the departmental proceedings are one and the same and because the applicant was acquitted by the Court, departmental enquiry cannot be permitted. Learned Government Pleader contended that the punishment imposed on the respondent is not disproportionate to the charges leveled against him and it is perfectly legal, but the Tribunal has passed the orders without going into the merits of the case and therefore the matter may be remanded to the Tribunal to decide the matter afresh on merits. On the other hand, it is contended by the learned counsel for the respondent that the punishment imposed on the respondent – applicant is disproportionate to the charges. Having regard to the facts and circumstances, we are of the considered view that the result of the criminal case will not bind the departmental proceedings. In view of the fact that the Tribunal has allowed the O.A. without going into the merits of the case, it would suffice if the matter is remanded to the Tribunal for passing fresh orders on merits. However, we are satisfied with the submission of the learned counsel for the respondent that the punishment imposed is disproportionate to the charges. Taking into consideration the fact that the order passed by the Tribunal is not on merits, we set aside the impugned order passed by the Tribunal and remit the matter to the Tribunal for passing orders afresh on merits, on or before 30th July, 2008, in accordance with law. The writ petition is accordingly allowed and the matter remanded to the Tribunal as above. T. MEENA KUMARI, J. G. CHANDRAIAH, J. Date: 12-03-2008. MVB.