(Per GM, J)

This writ petition is filed assailing the legality and validity of the order dated 15.09.2004 passed in O.A. No.1150 of 2004 by the A.P. Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad, (for short, ‘the Tribunal’) whereby the O.A. filed by the petitioner/applicant was dismissed, upholding the punishment of postponement of increments for two years with effect on future increments and pension and treating the suspension period from 22.07.1999 to 25.08.1999 as ‘not on duty’, imposed upon him by the disciplinary authority, the third respondent, which was affirmed in appeal and review, by the second and first respondents respectively.

2. The petitioner was initially recruited as a Police Constable in Adilabad District in the year 1981, subsequently promoted as a Head Constable in the year 1994 and has been working as such. While so, the third respondent issued charge memo bearing C.No.PR/37/99 dated 16.07.1999 to the petitioner which is to the following effect:

“On 10.06.1999 Sri T.Srinivasa Rao, H.C.1306 in charge of the P.S. front guard Madaram left P.S. without permission of S.H.O. and went to Madaram centre along with P.C.2288 on his own Hero Honda Motor Cycle, beat one Devi Ravinder regarding his due amount of Rs.200/- and thereby exhibited high handed behavior towards Devi Ravinder by bringing him to P.S. in an Auto and putting him in lock up without permission of the S.I. or without any case against him.”

Thereafter, the Sub-Divisional Police Officer, Nirmal, was appointed as Enquiry Officer to conduct an enquiry into the allegations made in the charge sheet dated 16.07.1999 against the petitioner. During the enquiry, 8 witnesses were examined and 11 documents were marked on behalf of the prosecution/department. However, the petitioner did not choose to examine any witnesses nor exhibit any document on his behalf despite sufficient opportunity being afforded to him. Thereupon, the enquiry was completed following the due procedure and the Enquiry Officer submitted his report dated 30.04.2001 stating that the charge levelled against the charged officer is held proved. After receipt of the enquiry report, the disciplinary authority furnished a copy of the enquiry report to the petitioner vide Memo C.No.39/PR/A5.1/ 99 dated 01.06.2001 inviting his reply to the same. Thereafter, the petitioner submitted his representation on 27.08.2001 stating that the findings of the Enquiry Officer are completely based on presumptions and seeking total exoneration from the charge levelled against him. Not being satisfied with the same, the disciplinary authority inflicted upon the petitioner the punishment of postponement of increments for two years with effect on future increments and pension and treating the suspension period from 22.07.1999 to 25.08.1999 as ‘not on duty’ vide proceedings No.39/PR/99 (DO.3504/02) dated 07.10.2002.

3. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner preferred an appeal to the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Warangal Range, Warangal, the second respondent, which was rejected vide proceedings No.C.No.127/APP/A/02 (RO No.75/2003) dated 26.03.2003. The review petition filed by the petitioner before the Additional Director General of Police (Admn.), Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad, the first respondent, too met with the same fate.

Challenging the same, the petitioner filed the subject O.A. before the Tribunal.

4. The Tribunal, after perusing the material on record and upon hearing the arguments put forth by the learned counsel on either side, considered the matter in the right perspective and came to the conclusion that there was no illegality in the orders impugned before it and upheld the order of punishment passed by the disciplinary authority. Holding so, the Tribunal dismissed the O.A. Questioning the same, the petitioner filed the present writ petition.

5. Heard Sri D.Linga Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Services-I.

6. The learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently