ORDER :

A.V. Sesha Sai, J.

Applicant in Original Application No.8572 of 2001 on the file of the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal (hereinafter called, ‘the Tribunal’) is the petitioner in the present Writ Petition, filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner herein filed the said Original Application under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, assailing G.O.Ms.No.45 Home (SC-A) Department dated 24.02.2001, issued by the State Government and the consequential proceedings dated 24.03.2001 of the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Kurnool. By way of G.O.Ms.No.45 Home (SC-A) Department dated 24.02.2001, the State Government dismissed the petitioner from service and the Deputy Inspector General of Police issued the consequential order dated 24.03.2001. The said orders came to be issued as a consequence of the report dated 24.04.2000 submitted by the Tribunal for Disciplinary Proceedings in Tribunal Enquiry Case No.21 of 1998.

2. The Tribunal, vide order dated 02.05.2003, dismissed the Original Application, confirming the orders of punishment of dismissal and in the present Writ Petition, challenge is to the said order.

3. Heard Sri Lakshmikanth Reddy Desai, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri N. Ashwatha Narayana, learned Government Pleader for Services-I, appearing for the respondents, apart from perusing the material available on record.

4. Submissions/contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioner:

(1) The order passed by the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal is highly erroneous, contrary to law and not in consonance with the material available on record, besides being opposed to the very spirit and object of the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1991.

(2) No independent appreciation of the material available on record was undertaken either by the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal or by the Disciplinary Authority.

(3) The involvement of the petitioner could not be proved before the Tribunal for Disciplinary Proceedings beyond reasonable doubt and the Tribunal arrived at the conclusions without any foundation and basis and without assigning any valid reasons.

(4) Having regard to the contradictions in the evidence of the witnesses examined before the Tribunal for Disciplinary Proceedings, the Tribunal for Disciplinary Proceedings thoroughly went wrong in recording the findings against the petitioner.

(5) The Department could not prove by adducing cogent and convincing reasons, the demand and acceptance by the petitioner, which are essential elements and the condition precedent for imposing the penalty.

In support of his submissions and contentions, learned counsel for the petitioner takes the support of the Division Bench judgment of the composite High Court of A.P. in the case of Abdul Lateef v Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Principal Secretary, Agriculture and Co-operation Dept. and another, 2005 (2) ALT 762 (DB).

5. Contentions/submissions of learned Government Pleader:-

(1) Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the Disciplinary Authority is perfectly justified in inflicting the penalty of dismissal from service and there is no error in the findings of the Tribunal for Disciplinary Proceedings and, in the absence of any procedural infirmity or jurisdictional error, invocation of the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by the petitioner is impermissible.

(2) The petitioner herein cannot request this Court to undertake re-appreciation of factual aspects and any such request is impermissible under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

(3) The Department proved its case beyond reasonable doubt and the evidence on record clinchingly proves the involvement of the petitioner in the case.

To bolster his submissions and contentions, learned Government Pleader places reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of State of A.P. and othe