IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE TWELFTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED and THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G.BHAVANI PRASAD WRIT PETITION No.19876 of 2008 Between: 1 The Commissioner of Panchayat Raj and Rural Employment, A.P., Hyderabad. 2 The Government of A.P., rep. by its Secretary, Panchayat Raj and Rural Development Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad. ..... PETITIONERS AND 1 Smt. Y.Mahalaxmi, Madal Parishad Development Officer, M.P. Nandigam, Srikakulam District. 2 The District Collector, Srikakulam .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Aﬃdavit ﬁled herein the High Court may be pleased to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of “Writ of Certiorari” calling for the records relating to the orders of the Hon'ble A.P. Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad passed in O.A.No.7970/2003 dated 09-08-2007, as being erroneous, illegal and unreasonable and quash the same and pass such other order or orders. Counsel for the Petitioners: GP FOR SERVICES II Counsel for the Respondents: None The Court made the following: THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD WRIT PETITION No.19876 OF 2008 ORDER: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice Ghulam Mohammed) This writ petition is ﬁled questioning the order dated 09.08.2007 passed in O.A.No.7970 of 2003 on the ﬁle of the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the 1st respondent herein, while working as Mandal Parishad Development Oﬃcer of Nandigam Mandal Parishad, Srikakulam District, was placed under suspension, by order dated 16.02.2002 of the District Collector, Srikakulam, on the ground that she was trapped by the Anti Corruption Bureau authorities and a case was registered against her under the provisions of Prevention of Corruption Act. Aggrieved by the same, the 1st respondent ﬁled O.A.No.4508 of 2002 before the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal and the same was dismissed on 08.05.2002 holding that the 1st respondent can ﬁle a statutory appeal before the Commissioner of Panchayat Raj, against the order of suspension. It seems, thereafter, the 1st respondent preferred an appeal before the Commissioner of Panchayat Raj, but on the ground that no orders have been passed thereon, she again ﬁled O.A.No.2749 of 2003 before the Tribunal seeking to set aside the order of suspension dated 16.02.2002, and in pursuance of the interim orders passed in the said O.A., she was reinstated into service on 09.06.2003. However, surprisingly, the Commissioner of Panchayat Raj and Rural Employment, Hyderabad, issued proceedings dated 27.11.2003, again placing the 1st respondent under suspension on the selfsame allegations mentioned in the suspension order, dated 16.02.2002, passed by the District Collector. Aggrieved by the same, the 1st respondent preferred the present O.A.No.7970 of 2003 before the Tribunal, wherein interim orders were passed suspending the proceedings dated 27.11.2003 of the Commissioner of Panchayat Raj, impugned therein. Thereupon, the respondent authorities in the O.A. have filed V.M.A.No.39 of 2004 seeking to vacate the said interim order. The Tribunal, after detailed consideration of the matter, held that there was no prima facie case of demanding and receiving bribe by the 1st respondent and the phenolphthalein test also failed, which was not denied in the counter-aﬃdavit ﬁled by the respondents, and, therefore, there was no justiﬁable ground for keeping the 1st respondent under suspension and, accordingly, the Tribunal allowed the O.A., setting aside the proceedings impugned therein, and dismissed the V.M.A. ﬁled by the authorities, by the impugned order dated 09.08.2007. Questioning the same, this writ petition is ﬁled by the respondent authorities in the O.A. 3. Learned Government Pleader for Services-II appearing for the petitioners contended that the 1st respondent was placed under suspension as a measure of disciplinary proceedings for the misconduct alleged against her, that the departmental proceedings initiated by the disciplinary authority and the criminal case got registered by the A.C.B. authorities stand on a diﬀerent footing, and that merely because the phenolphthalein test failed and the same was not denied by the authorities in their counter ﬁled before the Tribunal, the Tribunal ought not to have held the suspension as not justiﬁable and ought not to have allowed the O.A., setting aside the order of suspension. 4. The contentions of the learned Government Pleader cannot be accepted. Before the Tribunal, it was the contention of the 1st respondent that she never demanded or received bribe, and the phenolphthalein test, which is the basis for the allegations levelled against her, also failed. The petitioner authorities in their counter ﬁled before the Tribunal did not deny the failure of phenolphthalein test. In the circumstances, we are of the view that the Tribunal has rightly passed the impugned order, allowing the O.A. and setting aside the order of suspension impugned therein. That apart, pursuant to the interim orders passed by the Tribunal, the 1st respondent has been reinstated into service on 11.03.2005, as stated in the aﬃdavit ﬁled in support of the writ petition. No material has been placed on record justifying the order, dated 27.11.2003, again placing the 1st respondent under suspension, after she was reinstated into service pursuant to the interim order passed by the Tribunal. The Tribunal, on consideration of the material placed before it, came to the conclusion that there was no prima facie case of demanding and receiving bribe by the 1st respondent, as the phenolphthalein test had failed. The learned Government Pleader has not been able to substantiate that the said conclusion reached by the Tribunal is not correct. 5. For the aforesaid reasons, we see no illegality in the impugned order passed by the Tribunal warranting interference of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. However, we make it clear that the authorities can proceed with the disciplinary proceedings as per law, and any observations made in this order as well as in the impugned order shall not have any effect on the same. 6. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. _______________________ JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED _______________________ JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD 12th September, 2008 IBL