THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.N.RAO NALLA WRIT PETITION No.24437 of 2011 Dated:02.09.2011 Between: The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Home (Services-II) Department, Rep.by its Prl.Secretary, Secretariat, Hyderabad, And others. …Petitioners and S.Das, And another. …Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.N.RAO NALLA WRIT PETITION No.24437 of 2011 ORDER: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice V.V.S.Rao) The first respondent, a Constable in Vijayawada, was charged of demanding and accepting an amount of Rs.50/- from L.K.Mohanty, driver of lorry bearing No.ORO-5B 2183. The Assistant Commissioner conducted oral enquiry and submitted a report holding that the charge is proved against the first respondent. The disciplinary authority – third petitioner herein, by order dated 16.04.2002 awarded punishment of reduction in time scale of pay by one stage for a period of one year with cumulative effect. The delinquent officer appealed before the second petitioner, which was dismissed on 20.06.2002. The same was challenged before the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal in O.A.No.2652 of 2003. By order dated 21.07.2010, the learned Tribunal allowed the said Original Application setting aside the punishment order and directed to regularize the service of the first respondent during suspension period with all the consequential benefits. In this writ petition, the Government Pleader for Services–I would contend that the evidence of the complainant – Mohanty, was very well corroborated by the other evidence and the learned Tribunal was in error in not appreciating this aspect of the matter. We are afraid, we cannot accept the said plea. We have perused the order of the disciplinary authority, appellate authority and that of the learned Tribunal as well as the material available on record. As rightly held by the learned Tribunal, L.K.Mohanty, who is the driver from whom the first respondent allegedly demanded bribe, did not support of the case of the Department. In fact, he was not examined at all. When the complainant himself was not examined, on mere surmises, a Government servant cannot be held guilty of such a serious charge of accepting bribe. Further, we have perused the appellate order passed by the second respondent. The same is not in accordance with the law. The appellate order should be reasoned. It is well settled that the appellate authority is bound to consider various grounds urged before him and record findings on each of the grounds while confirming the order of the disciplinary authority (Ram Chander v Union of India[1]). We, therefore, do not see any reason to interfere with the well-considered order passed by the learned Tribunal. The writ petition, for the above observations, is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. __________________ (V.V.S.RAO, J) _____________________ (B.N.RAO NALLA, J) 02.09.2011 vs [1] AIR 1986 SC 1173