G. BIKSHAPATHY, J.

( 1 ) THE writ petition is filed challenging the Order passed by the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal in O. A. No. 5746 of 2002, dated 22. 4. 2003.

( 2 ) PETITIONER is the applicant before the Tribunal. He joined the service as Cooperative sub-Registrar in 1995. While so, at the relevant time namely 1999, he was working as Sales Officer in Guntur Cooperative central Bank. According to the duties attached to his post, he has to collect over due loans from the borrowers. One mr. Gudibandla Vema Reddy and his mother Samrajyamma are members of primary Agricultural Cooperative Society, gorantla. They have taken a loan of rs. 67,100/- and Rs. 62,400/- from the financing Bank viz. Guntur Cooperative central Bank for purchase of a tractor in the year 1994. It is stated that the said borrowers have been paying the instalments for sometime according to the terms and conditions of the sanction of the loan, but they committed default in payment of the instalments during 1998. Therefore, recovery proceedings were initiated before the Deputy registrar in February, 1998. After giving notices and on failure to pay the overdue balance, the tractor was attached and it was sought to be auctioned on 4. 5. 1999. However, it is stated that on request of the borrower Vema Reddy, the auction was postponed to 11. 5. 1999. However, when he sought further time, it was refused. It is the case of the petitioner that he became annoyed and used unparlimentary language to the petitioner and threatened with dire consequences, as the tractor was seized for the purpose of its sale in public auction.

( 3 ) WHILE so, on 15. 5. 1999, Vema reddy paid an amount of Rs. 13,000/- and a sum of Rs. 1,676/- was due from him. Therefore, the seized tractor was released on 17. 5. 1999. It is also stated by Vema reddy that he would pay the balance amount in the due course. According to the petitioner on 20. 5. 1999, he went to the petitioner s house and paid Rs. 2,000/- and also further stated that his mother s due will also be cleared shortly. The petitioner also appears to have prepared a receipt in the name of the mother of Vema Reddy, but in the meanwhile A. C. B. authorities arrived and laid a trap stating that the petitioner accepted the bribe from Vema Reddy and after the enquiry he was released on bail. No criminal proceedings were initiated against the petitioner. But, however, Government referred the matter to the Tribunal for disciplinary Proceedings for enquiry. Accordingly, enquiry was conducted before the Tribunal for Disciplinary Proceedings and the Tribunal for Disciplinary Proceedings found the petitioner guilty of accepting the bribe from Vema Reddy and accordingly submitted a report to the Government by an order dated 12. 2. 2001. The said report was furnished to the petitioner to which he submitted an explanation and thereafter the government passed Orders in G. O. Rt. No. 499, dated 15. 5. 2002 imposing the punishment of dismissal from service.

( 4 ) AGGRIEVED by the said Order of dismissal dated 15. 5. 2002, the petitioner filed o. A. No. 5746 of 2002 before the Andhra pradesh Administrative Tribunal. The learned andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal after considering the matter observed that there was no procedural irregularities and that it is not a case of no evidence and holding so, the Andhra Pradesh administrative Tribunal dismissed the O. A. by an Order dated 22. 4. 2003, against which the present writ petition has been filed.

( 5 ) THE learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the disciplinary tribunal gravely erred in finding the guilt of the accused. He further submits that the evidence has been misconstrued, misappreciated and misapplied by the Tribunal. The Tribunal had proceeded only with the sole aim of finding guilt of the petitioner of the charges disregarding the evidence which is forthcoming in favour of petitioner which established that the petitioner was not guilty. Even otherwise also, the ev

Click Here to Read the rest of this document