P CHANDRA MOULI Vs. GOVERNMENT OF A P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) When the matter came up for admission and hearing at the request of the Counsel on record, the matter is taken up for final hearing where the Counsel made elaborate submissions and in view of the same, the Writ Petition is being disposed of finally at the stage of admission.

(2.) Sri P.Chandramouli, Assistant Commissioner of Police (now under suspension), filed the present Writ Petition questioning the order made in O.A.No.589/ 05 dated 24-2-2005 on the file of A.P. Administrative Tribunal, in short referred to as 'Tribunal" for the purpose of convenience. The order impugned in the Writ Petition is as hereunder

(3.) Submissions made by Sri Gangaiah Naidu Sri Gangaiah Naidu, the learned Senior Counsel representing the writ petitioner would maintain that in the peculiar facts and circumstances, the Tribunal definitely erred in driving the party to invoke appellate remedy instead of considering the grounds which had been urged by the writ petitioner. The learned Counsel also would contend that the order of suspension which had been impugned in the O.A. is not in conformity with the A.P. Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1991, in short referred to as "Rules". The learned Counsel had drawn the attention of this Court to Rule 8 in general and Rule 8(1)(a) of the Rules in particular and would submit that on a prima facie reading of the impugned order in the O.A. it is clear that the same was made by recording perverse reasons and definitely though the party who made the order is competent to do so, had not applied his mind but had mechanically made the said order at the instance of the 3rd respondent who was impleaded eo nomine as 4th respondent. The learned Counsel also made elaborate submissions relating to the specific plea of mala fides taken in this regard and also the way in which the order had been made. The learned Counsel also in elaboration had explained the word or expression "ordinarily" employed in Sec. 20 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 in short referred to as "Act" for the purpose of convenience. The learned Counsel also had referred to A.P. Police Manual in general and Order No. 175-1 in particular. The learned Counsel also placed reliance on Subramonian v. State of Kerala and others', State of Kerala v. K.C. George and In Re Dhiraj Kumar Roy Chowdhury