J. VENKATAMANI Vs. PRINCIPAL SECRETARY - VIGILANCE-IV

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Writ Petition is directed against the order dtd. 4/12/2015 passed by the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal (hereinafter called, 'the Tribunal') in O.A.No.4890 of 2009. By way of the said order, the Tribunal dismissed the Original Application, filed by the petitioner herein under Sec. 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985.

(2.) Briefly stated the facts and circumstances, leading to the filing of the present Writ Petition are as follows: The petitioner herein was a Surveyor in Survey, Settlement and Lands Records Department. On the basis of a complaint made by one Sri Muniswami, saying that the petitioner demanded amount from him for doing official favour by way of sending survey report to the Mandal Revenue Officer, Narayanavanam Mandal and consequent upon the trap laid by the Anti Corruption Bureau Officials, the State Government referred the case to the Tribunal for Disciplinary Proceedings and the Tribunal for Disciplinary Proceedings had taken up the same, vide Tribunal Enquiry Case No.135 of 2003 and framed the following charge against the petitioner:- "CHARGE: That you - Sri J.Venkata Muni, while working as Mandal Surveyor, O/o.the M.R.O., Puttur, Chittoor District, I/c of Narayanavanam Mandal actuated by corrupt motive and in abuse of your official position demanded and accepted bribe of Rs.400.00 from the complainant Sri Thoti Munna Swamy, S/o.Thoti Kylasam, Aranyam Govindappanaidu Kandriga, Harijanawada, Narayanavanam Mandalam, Chittoor District on 5/10/2002 at 7-15 P.M. at your office room to do the official favour i.e., sending up the survey report to the M.R.O., Narayanavanam in respect of extent and boundaries of the agricultural land in survey No.111 of Aranyam Govindappanaidu Kandriga for the purpose of getting registered the land of 2.15 acres, which was under the enjoyment of the complainant since long time and thereby you are guilty of misconduct within the meaning of Rule 2(b) of the A.P.Civil Services (Disciplinary Proceedings Tribunal) Rules, 1989 framed under the A.P.Civil Services (Disciplinary Proceedings Tribunal) Act, 1960 as amended in 1993."

(3.) During the course of enquiry before the Tribunal for Disciplinary Proceedings, as many as 6 witnesses, P.Ws.1 to 6, were examined and Exs.P1 to P16 were marked on behalf of the Department and on behalf of the defence side, D.W.1 was examined and Exs.D1 and D2 were marked. The Tribunal for Disciplinary Proceedings submitted a report dtd. 26/4/2006, holding the petitioner guilty of misconduct within the meaning of Rule 2(b) of the A.P.Civil Services (Disciplinary Proceedings Tribunal) Rules, 1989, and held that the prosecution established the charge against the petitioner in all probabilities and further held that the petitioner is liable for punishment under Rule 9(ix) of the A.P.Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1991.