IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA WRIT PETITION NO. 13183 of 2003 Between: Chakrala Venkateswara Rao ..... PETITIONER AND The Director General and Inspector General of Police, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad and others .....RESPONDENTS The Court made the following : ORAL ORDER: (per THE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI) Assailing the order dated 28.02.2003 passed by the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad, dismissing the O.A. No.2722 of 1998 confirming the order passed by the third respondent herein, which was further confirmed by the second and third respondents, removing the petitioner from service, the present writ petition is filed. The petitioner was appointed as a Police Constable on 15.2.1975. While so, on the allegations that he remained absent from beat duty on 4.2.1994 at Venkatagiri Police Station; mis-conducted himself in kicking one K.Chenchaiah in drunken state and created an ugly scene at Kazipet centre and remained unauthorized absent from 5.2.1994 onwards, he was charge sheeted and an Enquiry Officer was appointed. The Enquiry Officer, after conducting detailed enquiry, opined that the petitioner is guilty of all the three charges. The petitioner on receipt of the Enquiry Report, has submitted his further written statement. Upon perusing the same, the third respondent has passed orders dated 28.10.1996 imposing the punishment of removal from service with immediate effect, treating the period of suspension from 16.2.1994 to 9.10.1994 as not on duty while treating the period of absence from 5.2.1994 to 15.2.1994 as on duty. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner preferred Appeal before the second respondent, who by order dated 13.7.1997 dismissed the same. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner preferred a Revision Petition before the first respondent, which was also rejected by order dated 12.12.1997. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner filed the above O.A. The Tribunal, by the order impugned herein, has dismissed the O.A. holding that the same is devoid of merits. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Services-I. As can be seen from the record, it is not as if the charges levelled against the petitioner are decided on conjectures and the conclusions are not based on evidence. It is not in dispute that the procedure contemplated under A.P.C.S. (CC & A) Rules, 1991 is strictly adhered to. The petitioner was furnished with the Enquiry Report to which he submitted his further written explanation. When the Enquiry Officer has conducted detailed enquiry and at every stage afforded reasonable opportunity to the petitioner to defend himself and on appraisal of entire material available on record, has come to the conclusion that the petitioner is guilty of charges, this court cannot make a rowing enquiry in the charges again. That apart, besides the Disciplinary Authority, on scrutiny of the material placed on record, the Appellate and the Revisional Authorities have also confirmed the findings of the Enquiry Officer. We do not find any reason to differ from the findings on that aspect. Adverting to the quantum of punishment, as observed by the Tribunal, when once the charges are held proved, punishment is the exclusive domain of the Disciplinary Authority. Even otherwise, members of the police force, who are expected to be disciplined, involve themselves in the acts of indiscipline and delinquencies, a lenient view is unwarranted. Having given our anxious consideration, we do not find any ground to interfere with the order impugned. Consequently, the writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. ____________________ Justice T.Meena Kumari _________________________ Justice Gopala Krishna Tamada July 27, 2010 MAS