THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.G.SHANKAR WRIT PETITION No.21662 of 2011 Dated:02.08.2011 Between: The Engineer-in-Chief, I&CAD (Admn.Wing) Dept., Errumanzil, A.P., Hyderabad, And others. … Petition And B.Pateswara Rao, And another. ... Responde THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.G.SHANKAR WRIT PETITION No.21662 of 2011 ORDER: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice V.V.S.Rao) This writ petition by the Engineer-in-Chief, I & CAD Department, and others is filed assailing the order dated 03.11.2010 in O.A.No.441 of 2008 of Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal. By impugned order, the lear Tribunal set aside the order dated 09.01.2008 passed by the second petitio herein imposing punishment of withholding promotion for five years f 01.01.2008 to the first respondent, a Senior Assistant in the Departmen Irrigation and Command Area Development. The facts which are not seriously disputed in brief are as follows. At relevant time, the first respondent was working as Senior Assistant in Qua Control Division at Mylavaram. Allegations were received that he deman bribes from newly appointed Junior Assistants/Record Assistants. Theref disciplinary enquiry was initiated and six articles of charges were framed. then Superintending Engineer conducted enquiry and passed the impug order imposing punishment on the first respondent which was assailed be the Tribunal. The learned Tribunal after verifying the record found that the enq reports contains the statement of facts; the statements given by about fift employees collected behind the back of the first respondent; that no statem was marked during the course of enquiry and after recording the statemen the delinquent officer and without reference to the charges framed, the Enq Officer submitted the report that the first respondent is guilty of the char framed. Learned Tribunal, therefore, came to the conclusion that the enq was not conducted in accordance with Rule 20 of the Andhra Pradesh C services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1991 (the Rules, brevity), and accordingly, set aside the order of punishment. In this writ petition, the Government Pleader for Services – II submits enquiry was conducted by the disciplinary authority himself, that statement the witnesses were recorded and the delinquent officer was given opportunity before recording his statement. Alternatively he submits that w the learned Tribunal came to the conclusion that enquiry was not prop conducted in accordance with Rule 20 of the Rules, liberty ought to have b given to the petitioners herein to conduct fresh enquiry in accordance with Rules. The attention of this Court has been invited to the enquiry report da 24.11.2007. We have perused the same, and we are convinced that Rule 2 the Rules was followed more in breach in conducting enquiry. observations made by the learned Tribunal with regard to the enquiry report fully justified and we do not find any justification in interfering with the impug order. Insofar as the other submissions are concerned, when the enquiry is conducted properly in accordance with Rule 20 of the Rules, the punishm imposed is rendered void and it is within the discretion of the Court or Tribunal exercising power of judicial review to pass appropriate orders. F the reading of the impugned order, no such request was made when the ma was heard by the Tribunal, and therefore, in this writ petition we are not incli to grant any such liberty. However, it will be open to the petitioners to move Tribunal by way of review, if so advised. The writ petition, with the above observations, is accordingly dismisse _____________ (V.V.S.RAO ________________ (K.G.SHANKAR 02.08.2011 vs