The main legal point established in the judgment is that a government servant's conviction for corruption justifies dismissal from service to uphold public interest and maintain the integrity of public institutions.

ORDER :

M.GANGA RAO, J.

The State of Andhra Pradesh represented by its authorities filed this writ petition being aggrieved by the order of the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal dated 17.07.2018 in O.A.No.3045 of 2017 wherein and whereby the Tribunal allowed the OA setting aside G.O.Ms.No.72 dated 03.11.2017 whereby, in exercise of the powers conferred under Clause (x) of Rule 9 read with sub-Rule (i) of Rule 25 of A.P.Civil Services (CC&A) Rules, 1991 read with G.O.Ms.No.2 dated 04.01.1999, the respondent was dismissed from service on the ground that he was sentenced to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for five years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,00,000/- in default to suffer simple imprisonment for one year for the offence under Section 13(1) (3) read with 13 (2) of Prevention of Corruption Act vide judgment dated 15.05.2015 in C.C.No.21 of 2006 by the Special Judge for SPE & ACB Cases, Visakhapatnam.

2. Brief facts of the case are that the respondent was initially appointed as Forest Range Officer on 08.11.1993 and thereafter, reached the position of Assistant Conservator of Forests on 08.06.2014. During the year 2002 while he was working as Forest Range Officer, the ACB personnel conducted raid and found that the respondent was in possession of the assets disproportionate to the known sources of income and registered a case in Cr.No.5/RC-WLR/2002 U/s 13 (2)a r/w 13 (1) (e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The Government vide G.O.Ms.No.13 dated 27.1.2006 accorded permission for prosecution of the respondent in court of law. It appears that pending trial, the Government vide G.O.Ms.No.104 dated 10.10.2007 deleted the expenditure, income and assets of the family members and others. The Accused Officer’s expenditure during the check period was arrived at Rs.94,44,640.02 ps and his total income for the said period was arrived at Rs.33,55,121/-. The excess expenditure of the Accused Officer was worked out to Rs.60,88,519.02 ps. and disproportionate assets of the Accused Officer was arrived at Rs.1,65,20,480.34 ps. Having examined the recommendations, the Government accorded permission to the Director General, ACB for prosecution of the accused officer according to law. Based on G.O.Ms.No.104 dated 10.10.2007, the Government vide Memo No.5447/FOR.IV(1)/2002-9 dated 25.01.2018 requested the Director General, ACB to take necessary further action in the matter. When the 1st respondent was not continued in service, he filed O.A.No.2703 of 2016 before the Tribunal to allow him to continue in service as the sentence of imposition of punishment is suspended in Crl.MP.No.721 of 2015 in Crl.Appeal No.473 of 2015 dated 21.5.2015. The said OA was closed on 16.9.2016 as the Government has taken a decision in Lr.No.5547/For.IV/A1/2002 dated 31.5.2016 to continue the applicant in service till the disposal of the Criminal Appeal. The Government vide G.O.Ms.No.156 dated 28.11.2008 cancelled the orders issued in favour of the respondent in G.O.Ms.No.104 dated 10.10.2007. Being aggrieved by the same, the respondent approached the Tribunal by filing O.A.No.7373 of 2010. The said OA was allowed on 4.4.2013 along with VMA.No.1619 of 2012 setting aside G.O.Ms.No.156 dated 28.11.2008 on the ground that the said GO is issued without notice to the respondent and liberty is given to the authorities to issue notice and take further action. The Government vide G.O.Ms.No.72 dated 3.11.2017 exercising the power conferred under Clause (x) of Rule 9 read with Sub-rule (i) of Rule 25 of APCS (CC&A) Rules, 1991 read with G.O.Ms.No.2 dated 04.01.1999 imposed a punishment of dismissal from service on the respondent as he was found guilty of the charges and convicted by the Special Judge for SPE&ACB Cases, Visakhapatnam vide judgment dated 15.5.2015 in C.C.No.21 of 2006. The said GO was set aside by the APAT by allowing the impugned OA.No.3045 of 2017 directing the authorities to continue the respondent in terms of letter No.5547/For.IV/A1/2002 dated 31.5.2016 and the