THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY WRIT PETITION No.10093 of 2004 ORAL ORDER: (per the Hon’ble Sri Justice D.S.R.Varma) Heard both sides. 2. This writ petition is filed seeking to issue a writ of Certiorari calling for the records connected with the order, dated 16.10.2003, passed by the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad, in O.A.No.802 of 2003 and to quash the said order. 3. Petitioners 1 and 2 are respondents 1 and 2, respectively, and the respondent herein is the applicant (delinquent officer) in the said O.A. 4. For the sake of convenience, the parties will hereinafter be referred to as arrayed in the O.A. 5. The facts, in brief, that led to filing of the writ petition are that the delinquent officer was charged for the mis- conduct, which is as under: - “Grave misconduct in a state of drunkenness on 23.03.2002 at about 14.00 hours, at Patamata Centre in (i) assaulting an old rickshaw puller-R.Laxmudu, aged about 75 years (ii) Quarrelling with the driver of Mini Van No.AP-27 T 6522 and (iii) abusing and resisting R.I. Traffic-II Circle Sri C.S.Vara Prasad and exhibiting gross insubordination when the later tried to send him for medical examination on 23.03.2002 at about 16.00 hours.” 6. An enquiry was conducted and the Enquiry Officer recorded the charges as proved and consequently, proceedings in C/9/PR/2002, dated 12.08.2002, were issued by the first respondent wherein and whereby the punishment of compulsory retirement was imposed on the delinquent officer and it is also on record that the said proceedings were confirmed by the appellate authority-second respondent through proceedings in TDS.No.938/Appeal-2/2002, dated 11.10.2002. Challenging the said proceedings, the delinquent officer filed O.A.No.802 of 2003 before the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad. 7. The main contentions of the delinquent officer before the Tribunal were firstly, the Enquiry Officer has not followed the prescribed procedure, inasmuch as, he has not allowed him to cross-examine the witnesses and did not even supply the documents to him; secondly, there was no proper evidence on record to prove the charges levelled against him and thirdly, the findings recorded by the Appointing authority are perverse. 8. The Tribunal, having gone into the evidence, both oral and documentary, available on record and after carefully perusing the impugned proceedings, arrived at a conclusion that the findings recorded by the Appointing authority were devoid of any proper reasons and acceptable evidence and eventually, held the conclusions of the Appointing Authority as perverse and accordingly, set aside the proceedings issued thereof. Hence, the present writ petition is filed challenging the said order, passed by the Tribunal. 9. The factual aspects have been gone into by the Enquiry Officer as well as the Appointing Authority. In such an event, the jurisdiction of the Tribunal is, in normal course, very narrow. In other words, if the Tribunal, basing on the evidence on record, differs with the conclusions arrived at by the Appointing authority, it can interfere with the proceedings impugned therein on the ground of perversity. Only in such circumstances and for that purpose, the Tribunal can go into the merits of the case, but, normally, not otherwise. 10. In the present case, it was pointed out by the Tribunal that there is no substantial evidence on record in order to arrive at the conclusion that the delinquent officer is guilty of the charges levelled against him, as arrived at by the Appointing authority. 11. So far as the first charge -- regarding the assaulting of an old rickshaw puller, by name R.Laxmudu, is concerned, it is surfaced that he is a jail bird and when he was examined, while he was undergoing imprisonment, he stated that he was not assaulted by the delinquent officer, but he was only pushed aside on the ground that the rickshaw owned by him was causing obstruction to the traffic. But, R.Laxmudu in his evidence as P.W-5 did not substantiate the assault of the delinquent officer on him. Therefore, there is no specific allegation that the delinquent officer assaulted the old rickshaw puller by name R.Laxmudu, though was made by the Appointing authority. Therefore, the first charge was not proved. 12. Secondly, the driver of the Mini Van with whom the delinquent officer was alleged to have entertained quarrel was not at all examined. Therefore, the second charge was also not proved. 13. Thirdly, as regards the charge of abusing and resisting the Reserve Inspector (R.I.), the Police Constable, who allegedly accompanied the Reserve Inspector on the date of arrest of the delinquent officer, was examined as P.W-4. He stated that the delinquent officer shouted something, while he is being brought out of the house, but did not strictly support the case of the Appointing authority. Further, the authority of the Reserve Inspector to drag the delinquent officer out of his house at midday is seriously doubted. It is contended that the Reserve Inspector has no control over the delinquent officer in any manner, inasmuch as, both of them belong to two different wings and virtually, the Reserve Inspector is not superior to the delinquent officer. 14. Here, yet another thing pertinent to be noticed is that the delinquent officer was collected from his house but not while he was performing his official duties. In this regard, the Tribunal pointed out that the Reserve Inspector brought the delinquent officer out of his house, but not from the actual place of occurrence, as alleged in the charges. Therefore, the third charge was also not proved. 15. In that view of the matter, and since the charges were not sufficiently established against the delinquent officer, as rightly opined by the Tribunal in the impugned order with elaborate reasoning, we do not feel it expedient to conduct a further rowing enquiry to arrive at a different conclusion than the one arrived at by the Tribunal. 16. Learned Assistant Government Pleader strenuously argued that even at this stage, this Court is competent to go into all the aspects, in detail, by appreciating the evidence on record and entering into the case on merits and arrive at a different conclusion than the one arrived at by the Tribunal. 17. Though that proposition is unexceptionable, the same cannot be adopted in each and every case and can only be adopted when the facts and circumstances warrant, but not in a routine and mechanical manner. In other words, unless and until a palpable deficiency or flaw, either under law or on facts, which is capable of interfering with the impugned order, passed by the Tribunal, is noticed, this Court is not expected to go into the merits of the case, as suggested by the learned Assistant Government Pleader. 18. In fact, in one word we must assert that there is no evidence on record to hold the delinquent officer guilty of the charges levelled against him and in such a case, the impugned order passed by the Tribunal, holding the proceedings issued by the Appointing authority as perverse, is to be upheld. 19. In that view of the matter, the Tribunal, in our considered view, had rightly set aside the proceedings No.C/9/PR/2002, dated 12.08.2002, issued by the first respondent and the proceedings in TDS.No.938/Appeal- 2/2002, dated 11.10.2002 issued by the second respondent, confirming the proceedings of the first respondent. 20. For the foregoing reasons, the writ petition is devoid of merits and the same is liable to be dismissed. 21. In the result, the writ petition is dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. ______________________ JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA __________________________ JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY 18th February, 2010 dr