A JANARDHANA REDDY Vs. GOVERNMENT OF A P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this writ petition the order of the learned A.P. Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad dated 6.3.1998 made in OA No.34593 of 1991 upholding the validity of the order of the Government in G.O. Ms. No. 84 Revenue (CT.I) Department dated 6.2.1991 dismissing the petitioner herein from service from the Commercial Tax Department is assailed.

(2.) When the petitioner was working as Senior Assistant in the office of the Assistant Commissioner, Commercial Taxes, Circle No.IV, Hyderabad during the period 13.4.1987 to 20.6.1987, he was placed under suspension by order dated 20.6.1987 on the ground that he and other officers visited Vattimarthi village of Nalgonda District, demanded and accepted a bribe of Rs.2000/- from one T. Mallaiah (PW1) of Nagarjuna Modern Rice Mill and thereafter the petitioner and others went to Chittiyal and met the rice mill owners in that place and demanded a bribe of Rs.5000/- from Sri Pandiri Bikshapathy (PW3), Ranga Satyanarayana (PW4). In that regard charge memo No. 612/CT.I(i)/ 88-2 Revenue (CT.I) Department, dated 23.6.1988 was issued to the petitioner. It reads

(3.) On the above charge enquiry was conducted by the Tribunal for Disciplinary Proceedings, Hyderabad (hereinafter referred to as TDP, for brevity). On behalf of the prosecution nine witnesses were examined as P.Ws. 1 to 9 and nine documents were produced and marked as Exs.P.l to P.9 whereas on behalf of the petitioner-delinquent one P. Ananda Reddy was examined as D.W.1 and six documents were produced and marked as Exs.D.l to D.6. The TDP, on consideration of the oral and documentary evidence, recorded the finding that the first part of the charge that the petitioner-delinquent demanded a sum of Rs.2000/- and accepted the same as bribe from P .W.I is not proved and that the second part of the charge that the petitioner demanded a bribe of Rs.5000/- from PW3 and other millers of Chittiyal village is established. The Government of Andhra Pradesh on receipt of the report from TDP issued a second show cause notice and passed G.O Ms. No. 84 dated 6.2.1987 dismissing the petitioner from service as a disciplinary measure. The said action of the Government was assailed before the learned A.P. Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad in OANo.34593 of 1991. It was contended before the learned Tribunal that the findings recorded by the Chairman, Tribunal for Disciplinary Proceedings, Hyderabad are based on surmises, conjectures and suspicion and not on legal evidence. It was also contended that no reliance could be placed on the evidence of PW5 because he failed to disclose the names of the charged officials in the complaint, Ex.P.8. The learned Tribunal rejected both the contentions and consequently dismissed the OA and upheld the validity of G.O. Ms. No.84. Hence this writ petition assailing the validity of the order of the learned Tribunal.