V.V.S. RAO, J.

The writ petition is against the order dated 30.7.1999 passed by the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal in Original Application No.5279 of 1996 rejecting the challenge to G.O.Ms.No.128, Transport, Roads and Buildings (S.I) Department, dated 03.7.1993. Though the writ petition was filed by engaging a Counsel, the petitioner argued his case in person for the reason that his Counsel is not well.

Background

The petitioner initially joined as Lower Divisional Clerk in Roads and Buildings Department (R&B). He was later promoted as Upper Divisional Clerk. After he acquired the requisite qualifications, he was promoted as Draughtsman, Grade II, in the Office of the Executive Engineer (R&B), Parkal, Hanamkonda, Warangal. On 02.2.1988 the Deputy Superintendent of Police, and the Police Constable of Anti Corruption Bureau (ACB) along with punch witnesses trapped the petitioner when he allegedly accepted bride of a sum of Rs.500/-from one Dasari Purushotham of Regonda Village for issuing house rental value certificate (RVC) pursuant to an earlier demand. The ACB sent a report to the Government about the misconduct. They referred the matter to the Tribunal for Disciplinary Proceedings (TDP). The TDP framed a charge and conducted enquiry in TEC No.54 of 1988. The prosecution examined nine witnesses and marked Exs.P1 to P9. The petitioner deposed as D.W.1 and marked Exs.D1 to D8. Material objects M.O.1 to M.O.8 were also marked. On consideration of evidence, the TDP sent a report dated 29.4.1989 holding that the charge against the petitioner is proved. TDP recommended dismissal of the petitioner from service. The Government accepted the said recommendation and issued a show cause notice dated 09.3.1990 indicating their provisional decision to dismiss the petitioner. The petitioner submitted explanation. On considering the same, the Government issued orders in G.O.Ms.No.128, dated 03.7.1993 dismissing the petitioner which was assailed before the Tribunal.

The petitioner contended before the Tribunal that there is no evidence on record before the TDP to arrive at a finding that charge of accepting the illegal gratification is proved; finding of the Tribunal is perverse and that it has relied on the evidence of P.W.2 who is interested witness; the Hon’ble Minister for Roads & Buildings recommended the punishment of stoppage of three increments without cumulative effect; again the file was unnecessarily referred to the Minister and the Chief Minister (the CM) which is contrary to the procedure and that the case was referred to TDP without consulting the Head of the Department (HoD). The Tribunal did not find any merit in any of the submission and dismissed the Original Application accordingly.

Submissions

Before this Court the party-in-person made the following submissions. i) The learned Tribunal has not given adequate opportunity to the petitioner’s Counsel. ii) The Tribunal ordered the Government Pleader to produce the records on 27.7.1999. The matter was not listed on that day. However, on 30.7.1999 the matter appeared under the caption “for judgment to be delivered at 2:15” and the order was pronounced without the Government Pleader submitting the record. iii) The TDP while submitting the report did not conduct enquiry as per the Rules. Even though there are no independent witnesses, they sent a report finding the petitioner guilty, which is unsustainable. The TDP has no power to recommend dismissal or any punishment. Before referring the case to the TDP, the Government has not consulted the HoD. iv) Even though the Hon’ble Minister recommended a lesser punishment, the Government issued the Government Order dismissing the petitioner which is illegal and arbitrary. The party-in-person filed a compilation of photocopies of the following decisions in Babu Lal Bajpai v State of U.P AIR 1994 SC 1538 : 1994 CRI.L.J.1383, Kitab Singh v State of Rajasthan 1999 CRI.L.J.3590, Mathura Prasad v Union of India (2007) 1 S