B. SUDERSHAN REDDY, J.

( 1 ) THIS writ petition is filed questioning the order passed by the Andhra Pradesh administrative Tribunal dated 14-12-2001 made in O. A. No. 6799 of 2000 whereunder the Tribunal set aside the departmental proceedings initiated against the respondent herein.

( 2 ) THE respondent herein filed the said Original Application before the Tribunal challenging the departmental enquiry initiated against him in pursuance of the charge Memo No. L and O/b4/1067/98, dated 30-6-1998.

( 3 ) THE case of the respondent-applicant is that the criminal cases registered against him were ended in clean acquittal and as such the departmental enquiry sought to be conducted against him on the same set of facts is not sustainable in law. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent-applicant relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in M. Paul anthony v. Bharat Gold Mines Ltd. , and also the judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in A. P. S. R. T. C. and others v. T. Venkatapathi.

( 4 ) THE Tribunal came to the conclusion that the criminal cases, which were registered against the respondent-applicant alone are mentioned as basis for the charge framed against him in the Memorandum of charges. The Tribunal held that since the respondent-applicant was held not guilty for the commission of any of such offences and he was acquitted in all the criminal cases there is no other material against the respondent-applicant in order to enable the disciplinary authority to proceed with the enquiry against him and accordingly quashed the very disciplinary proceedings.

( 5 ) THE Commissioner of Police, aggrieved by the said order, filed the present writ petition invoking the jurisdiction of this court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It is contended that the order passed by the Tribunal is vitiated by an error apparent on the face of the record. The tribunal committed a serious error in quashing the very disciplinary proceedings initiated against the respondent-applicant. It is submitted that mere acquittal of the respondent-applicant in criminal cases registered against him cannot be the basis for quashing the very proceedings.

( 6 ) BEFORE adverting to the question as to whether the Tribunal had committed any error in quashing the disciplinary proceedings, it may be necessary to notice the relevant facts leading to filing of this writ petition.

( 7 ) THE respondent-applicant is a Police Constable working in Musheerabad Police station. He is alleged to have been caught red handed by the passengers at Jubilee Bus station, Secunderabad while he was committing theft of a suitcase, which was kept on the platform. He was arrested on 2-5-1998 and a case in Crime No. 67/98 under Sections 379 and 511 of the Indian penal Code has been registered at marredpally Police Station and he was sent to judicial custody on 8-5-1998. It is alleged that during the course of the investigation, the respondent-applicant confessed of his committing crimes of theft of lifting 15 suitcases separately from R. T. C. buses at imlibun Bus Station and Jubilee Bus Station. It is the case of the petitioners that the gold ornaments weighing about 22 tolas and 94 sarees etc. , all worth about Rs. 2. 00 lakhs were recovered.

( 8 ) DURING the further investigation, the respondent-applicant is alleged to have confessed of his involvement in the following criminal cases:1. Cr. No. 123/97 under Sec. 379 IPC of marredpally P. S. 2. Cr. No. 20/98 under Sec. 379 IPC of afzalgunj P. S. 3. Cr. No. 226/97 under Sec. 379 IPC of afzalgunj P. S. 4. Cr. No. 256/97 under Sec. 379 IPC of Afzalgunj P. S.

( 9 ) THE respondent-applicant was placed under suspension vide the proceedings dated 18-5-1998. He was also served with a charge Memo dated 30-6-1998 and statement of imputation was issued accordingly. The respondent-applicant submitted his written statement of defence dated 8-9-1998 denying the allegations levelled in" the article of charge and requested to kee

Click Here to Read the rest of this document