D.S.R. VARMA, J :-Heard the learned Government Pleader for Services-I, appearing for the petitioners, as well as the learned Counsel appearing for the respondent.

2. This writ of certiorari is filed, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking to quash the order, dated 6.11.2007, passed by the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad (for brevity 'the Tribunal '), allowing O.A. No.45l7 of 2007, filed by the respondent herein, seeking to set aside the proceedings Rc.No.A 1/2203/200l/Proceedings No.201/2007, dated 7.7.2007, of the Chief Rationing Officer, Hyderabad, petitioner No.1 herein.

3. Petitioners are the respondents and the respondent is the applicant, in the O.A., before the Tribunal.

4. For the sake of convenience in this order, the petitioners and the respondent will be referred to as "the petitioner No.1 and petitioner No.2" and "the respondent", respectively.

5. The facts, in brief, are that the respondent, while working as a Senior Assistant under the respondent No.1, was implicated in a trap case by the A.C.B., authorities for receiving illegal gratification. Subsequently, he was placed under suspension and thereafter reinstated into service. A case in C.C. No.3 of 2003 was registered before the Principal Special Judge for S.P.E., and A.C.B., Cases, Hyderabad (for brevity "the trial Court"), in which the respondent was convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and also to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-. Aggrieved by the same, the respondent had preferred an appeal Criminal Appeal NO.638 of 2007, along with Crl. A.M.P No.899 of 2007, in which this Court, by order, dated 12.6.2007, has suspended the sentence imposed against him. Thereafter, the competent authority i.e., petitioner No.1 passed order vide proceedings Rc.No.A1/ 2203/2001, dated 7.7.2007, dismissing the respondent from service, without conducting any enquiry, as postulated under Rule 9(x) read with Rule 25 of the Andhra Pradesh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1991 (for brevity "the Rules”) Challenging the said order, dated 7.7.2007, the respondent has filed O.A. No.4517 of 2007 before the Tribunal.

6. The Tribunal, after hearing both sides and considering the entire material available on record, allowed the O.A., setting aside the dismissal order, dated 7.7.2007. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners have filed the present writ petition.

7. From a perusal of the impugned order, it appears that the respondent was involved in a criminal case for receiving illegal gratification. After a full-fledged trial, he was convicted and sentenced also. On appeal, this Court, by order, dated 12.6.2007, suspended the sentence only, but not the conviction. As a sequel of the said order of conviction and sentence by the trial Court, the petitioner No.1 had passed order of dismissal of the respondent from service, as postulated under the Rules. Aggrieved thereby, the respondent had filed OA No.45l7 of 2007 before the Tribunal.

8. Notwithstanding the rule position, contemplated under the Rules, the Tribunal had allowed the O.A., placing reliance on the judgment, dated 7.8.2007, passed by a Division Bench of this Court, in W.P. - J No.16102 of 2007, whereunder and whereby, in similar circumstances, the order of dismissal was set aside.

9. The said judgment, dated 7.8.2007, of the Division Bench of this Court, in WP No.16102 of 2007, was placed before us wherein reliance was placed on Rule 25 of the Rules.

10. For the sake of convenience and ready reference, it is apt to extract Rule 25 of the Rules, which reads thus :

"Rule 25. Special procedure in certain cases :- Notwithstanding anything contained in Rule 20 to Rule 24

(i) where penalty is imposed on a Government Servant on the ground of conduct which has led to his conviction on a criminal charge, or

(ii) where the disciplinary authority is satisfied for reasons to be recorded by it in writing that it is not reasonably