HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V. ESWARAIAH AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZUL PURKAR W.P.No. 18987 OF 2009 Date: 10.09.2009 Between: D. Rajasekhar ………. Petitioner and Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. By Prl. Secretary, Home Department, Hyderabad & others …….. Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V. ESWARAIAH AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZUL PURKAR W.P.No. 18987 OF 2009 O R D E R: (per the Hon’ble Sri Justice V. Eswaraiah) The petitioner was a police constable in West Godavari District. He was removed from service vide order, dated 16.05.2001 on the ground that he involved in the commission of theft of 7.62 MM SLR from the District Police Office Complex, West Godavari and, a case, in that connection, in Crime No. 70 of 2001, for the offence under Section 380 IPC. was registered and a charge sheet was filed which was numbered as C.C.No. 244 of 2003 on the file of the Special Judicial Magistrate of I Class (Excise), West Godavari District at Eluru. After trial, the petitioner was acquitted of the said charge, on 04.03.2005. Thereafter, despite the representations being made to the respondents seeking his reinstatement, there was no response from them. Therefore, he filed O.A(SR).No. 12444 of 2004 before the A.P. Administrative Tribunal, questioning the proceedings, dated 16.05.2001, along with an Application M.A.No. 3202 of 2004 to condone the delay of three years four months and 25 days in filing the O.A. However, the said Application was dismissed on 11.11.2004, on the ground that the delay was not properly explained. Consequently, O.A(SR) was also rejected. Suppressing the aforesaid fact, the petitioner filed another O.A.No. 2119 of 2007 before the A.P. Administrative Tribunal, seeking declaration that the action of the respondents in not reinstating him, pursuant to the order of acquittal in C.C. No. 244 of 2003 is illegal and arbitrary. The said O.A. was also dismissed on the ground that when the earlier O.A., which was filed questioning the order of removal was dismissed, the petitioner cannot file another O.A. and the acquittal in the criminal case does not give him a new cause of action for reinstatement, as he was not removed because of his involvement in the criminal case. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader for Home on behalf of the respondents. On a careful perusal of the material available on record, we are of the opinion that the Tribunal, having noticed the dismissal of the earlier O.A., whereunder the order of removal was questioned, rightly observed that the order of acquittal in the criminal case does not give him a new cause of action for seeking reinstatement and dismissed the present O.A. Since the petitioner did not question the order of removal in O.A. No. 2119 of 2007, we are of the opinion that he is not entitled to any relief therein, and therefore, the Tribunal has rightly dismissed the said O.A. We do not see any error or illegality to interfere with the order impugned. The Writ Petition is, therefore, dismissed. No costs. ------------------------- (V. ESWARAIAH, J) ----------------------------------- (VILAS V. AFZUL PURKAR,J) 10th September 2009 ksld