N BHASKER RAO Vs. GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE writ petition is against the order dated 30.7.1999 passed by the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal in Original Application No.5279 of 1996 rejecting the challenge to G.O.Ms.No.128, Transport, Roads and Buildings (S.I) Department, dated 03.7.1993. Though the writ petition was filed by engaging a Counsel, the petitioner argued his case in person for the reason that his Counsel is not well.

(2.) THE petitioner initially joined as Lower Divisional Clerk in Roads and Buildings Department (R&B). He was later promoted as Upper Divisional Clerk. After he acquired the requisite qualifications, he was promoted as Draughtsman, Grade II, in the Office of the Executive Engineer (R&B), Parkal, Hanamkonda, Warangal. On 02.2.1988 the Deputy Superintendent of Police, and the Police Constable of Anti Corruption Bureau (ACB) along with punch witnesses trapped the petitioner when he allegedly accepted bride of a sum of Rs.500/- from one Dasari Purushotham of Regonda Village for issuing house rental value certificate (RVC) pursuant to an earlier demand. THE ACB sent a report to the Government about the misconduct. THEy referred the matter to the Tribunal for Disciplinary Proceedings (TDP). THE TDP framed a charge and conducted enquiry in TEC No.54 of 1988. THE prosecution examined nine witnesses and marked Exs.P1 to P9. THE petitioner deposed as D.W.1 and marked Exs.D1 to D8. Material objects M.O.1 to M.O.8 were also marked. On consideration of evidence, the TDP sent a report dated 29.4.1989 holding that the charge against the petitioner is proved. TDP recommended dismissal of the petitioner from service. THE Government accepted the said recommendation and issued a show cause notice dated 09.3.1990 indicating their provisional decision to dismiss the petitioner. THE petitioner submitted explanation. On considering the same, the Government issued orders in G.O.Ms.No.128, dated 03.7.1993 dismissing the petitioner which was assailed before the Tribunal.

(3.) THE Assistant Government Pleader for Services ?II submits that the plea raised by the petitioner before the Tribunal and this Court is an afterthought. On 02.2.1988 when he was trapped, the petitioner did not make any submission that he has not accepted the bribe and Purushotham tried to forcibly keep money in his pocket. She would also urge that there is no mandatory requirement to inform the HoD before referring the case to TDP; when a decision is taken contrary to the recommendation made to TDP the file has to be referred to the CM; but when there is a change in the Minister, the new Minister agreed with the recommendation of the TDP, and therefore, the procedure is correctly followed. She also refutes other contentions of the petitioner.