G CHENNA REDDY Vs. STATE OF A P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The writ petition is filed by the unsuccessful applicant as against an order made in O.A. No.8965/ 98 dated 4-12-2003 on the file of A.P. Administrative Tribunal in short referred to as "Tribunal" hereinafter wherein the proceedings issued in G.O. Rt. No. 1044, T.R. and B(Ser. 1.3) Department, dated 28-11-1998 had been assailed.

(2.) Sri Venkata Sastry, the learned Counsel representing the writ petitioner, in detail had taken this Court through the respective pleadings of the parties before the Tribunal, the impugned order and had pointed out that the whole enquiry is vitiated for the reason that the same had not been conducted in accordance with the A.P. Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1991, in short referred to as "present Rules" hereinafter and had been conducted in accordance with the A.P. Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1963, hereinafter referred to as "old Rules" and hence the Counsel would maintain that the whole proceedings are vitiated. The learned Counsel also had pointed out to Rule 20 of the present Rules dealing with Procedure for imposing major penalties and would comment that in the light of the procedure which had been adopted in the conduct of enquiry applying the old Rules, serious prejudice had been caused to the writ petitioner and this question was not given serious consideration by the Tribunal though the said question was just touched by the Tribunal. The Counsel also would point out that in the present case, the appellate authority made the order which had been impugned in the O.A. and hence the writ petitioner was deprived of an opportunity of having a remedy by way of an Appeal and on this ground also the proceedings are vitiated. The Counsel in all fairness would submit that this ground as a specific ground no doubt had been raised but the general ground that the procedure had not been followed alone had been canvassed.

(3.) Per contra, the learned Government Pleader for Services-II would contend that in the light of the reasons recorded by the Tribunal it cannot be said that the Tribunal had gone wrong in any way in negativing the contentions advanced by the writ petitioner. The learned Counsel also pointed out that the show-cause notice dated 17-9-1993 duly enclosing a copy of the report of the Enquiry Officer had been furnished to the applicant and the applicant submitted his explanation and the same was acknowledged by the appellant on 29-9-1993 who in turn submitted an explanation on 30-9-1993 and after consulting the A.P. Public Service Commission which had communicated their concurrence on 16-10-1998, the order which had been impugned before the Tribunal had been made. Even if the present Rules are taken into consideration, there is no irregularity which would vitiate the proceedings as such. The Counsel also would maintain that in view of the limitations to be observed by this Court while interfering with such orders made by the Tribunal exercising the powers of judicial review, this is not a fit case which deserves to be disturbed at the hands of this Court.