LAWS(APH)-2001-11-48

MASTAN VALI S Vs. GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH

Decided On November 05, 2001
S.MASTAN VALI Appellant
V/S
GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH, HOME DEPT. Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner while serving as Sub Inspector of Police in the service of the State Government of Andhra Pradesh, after holding a regular departmental enquiry before the Tribunal for Disciplinary Proceedings (for short 'TDP') was dismissed from service vide G.O.Ms. No.63, Home (SC.A) Department, dated 9-2-1996 as a disciplinary measure. The petitioner being aggrieved by the Government Order G.O.Ms. No. 63, dated 9-2-1996, instituted O.A. No.1744 of 1996 before the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal (for short 'APAT'), Hyderabad. The Tribunal by its judgment and order dated 14-10-1997 dismissed the Original Application and affirmed the disciplinary action taken by the Government. Hence, this writ petition under Article 226 assailing the legality and validity of the order of the learned Tribunal.

(2.) Learned Counsel for the petitioner would strenuously contend that both the TDP and the APAT have committed serious error in law in overlooking the admission made by the prosecution witnesses themselves that the person who received bribe in the police station is not the charged officer and someone else. The learned Counsel would highlight that the finding recorded by the TDP as well as the APAT is based on surmises and conjectures and suspicion and not on legally admissible evidence. The learned Counsel would contend that suspicion would never take the place of proof to sustain the impugned order. On the other hand, learned Government Pleader for Services II support the impugned order.

(3.) In the context of the rival contentions, the only point that arises for our consideration is whether the TDP as well as APAT have committed any error in ignoring the say of the prosecution witnesses in the regular departmental enquiry before the APAT that the bribe was not received by the charged officer and someone else and whether the factual findings recorded by the Tribunals are based on some legally admissible evidence or not or they suffer from vice of perversity.