GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH Vs. V.YELLAIAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The 1st respondent herein (for short, 'the respondent') is employed as a Constable in Nizamabad District. He was issued a charge memo on 09.05.1995 alleging that he was involved in a criminal case, being Crime No. 9 of 1995 on the file of P.S. Morthad under Section 420 I.P.C. and that he has cheated one Tudem Lingaiah to a tune of Rs. 30,000/-. It was alleged that the respondent and another have offered Mr. Tudem Lingaiah a sum of Rs. 90,000/- fake money, in case the latter pays them Rs. 30,000/-. The circumstances under which the said incident was noticed and the follow-up action was taken, was mentioned in the charge memo. On the same allegations, Crime No. 9 of 1995 came to be tried in C.C. No. 77 of 1995 by the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Armoor. The respondent submitted his explanation denying the charge. He stated that it was himself and another Constable, who have chased and caught hold of Batchu Srinivas and Bompally Srinivas, A1 and A2, in C.C. No. 77 of 1995 on noticing that they were involved in some unlawful activity and instead of rewarding them for the timely action taken by them, some higher officials have implicated him in a false case. Not satisfied with the explanation, the appointing authority, the 3rd petitioner, appointed the Sub-Divisional Police Officer, Kamareddy, as an enquiry officer. A report was submitted on 31.05.1997 holding that the charge against the respondent proved. Taking the same into account, the 3rd petitioner passed an order, dated 07.09.2006, imposing the punishment of dismissal from service. Appeal filed to the Deputy Inspector General of Police, the 2nd petitioner, and revision to the 1st petitioner, were rejected on 10.01.2007 and 23.11.2007, respectively.

(2.) Aggrieved by that, the respondent filed O.A. No. 7336 of 2008 before the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad. Apart from pleading that the findings of enquiry officer were perverse, the respondent also stated that C.C. No. 77 of 1995 ended in clean acquittal through judgment, dated 29.01.2000, and that there was no basis for the 3rd petitioner in imposing punishment of dismissal from service. The O.A. was opposed by the petitioners.

(3.) Through its order, dated 09.12.2010, the Tribunal allowed the O.A. The same is challenged in this writ petition.