GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH Vs. M BALASWAMY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition is filed seeking to quash the order dated 04-03-2008 passed in O. A. No. 3368 of 2005 along with M. A. No. 516 of 2008 on the file of Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad.

(2.) THE respondents herein are the applicants in the above O. A. and they seek to challenge the punishment of reduction in time scale of pay by two stages for a period of two years, imposed vide D. O. No. 1393/no. L&o/b1/254/95, dated 26-05-2003, which was confirmed in appeal and revision. The substance of the charge against the respondents - police constables is that while on beat duty, they have stopped a lorry to collect mamools in the name of entry fee and on seeing the vehicle of Assistant Commissioner of Police, both of them ran away from the spot. On enquiry with the lorry driver, cleaner and wood contractor, it was revealed that the police constables have demanded mamool terming it as 'entry fee ' from the lorry driver. The Assistant Commissioner of Police, Malakpet, has made an entry in the beat book and sent a report. Thereafter, both the police constables/respondents have been placed under suspension and a regular departmental enquiry was conducted. The Enquiry Officer after considering the material on record held the charges as 'not proved'. The disciplinary authority - Commissioner of Police issued dissent note and called for the explanation of the delinquent officers. After receipt of explanation, final order was passed to the effect that the charge was proved to the extent of 'stopping the lorry' and proceeded to impose the punishment.

(3.) LEARNED Government Pleader contended that the respondents-police constables have stopped the lorry and demanded money from the lorry driver, which was paid, and on seeing the vehicle of Assistant Commissioner of Police, they ran away from the spot, therefore the conduct indicates that they have collected the money and escaped from being caught by the higher official and the charges can be held as proved. Thus, the Tribunal erred in setting aside the finding of guilt and the punishment imposed.