A. Rajasheker Reddy, J.

1. The petitioners, the Commandant, Special Armed Reserve Central Police Lines, (SARCPL), Amberpet, Hyderabad and others, have challenged the order dated 08-02-2016 passed by the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad, in OA No.1175 of 2013 wherein and whereby the Tribunal allowed the OA filed by the applicant-respondent herein and set aside the order dated 30-11-2012 which imposed the penalty of reduction in time scale of pay for two stages, for a period of two years, with cumulative effect on future increments and pension, besides treating the unauthorized sick period w.e.f. 19-05-2010 to 11-06-2010 as leave without pay and suspension period from 12-06-2010 to till he reported for duty as ‘not on duty’ and consequently directed to treat the suspension period as on duty for all purposes, without monetary benefit and monetary benefit, be restricted 4 to, subsistence allowance paid to the respondent, during his suspension period.

2. Facts briefly stated are that the respondent (applicant in the OA) is working as a Police Constable attached to SARCPL, Hyderabad, having been appointed in the year 1992 and continuing as such in the said post. The respondent was issued with proceedings dated 29-06-2010 placing him under suspension for his alleged involvement in a criminal case and in that connection arrested by the Police, Malkajgiri, Hyderabad, on 12-06-2010 and remanded to judicial custody. Besides registration of criminal case, articles of charges were framed by the Department, by initiating departmental proceedings and sought for his written explanation. Articles of charges framed reads as follows:-

Count no.1 :- Gross misconduct in falsely reporting sick on 19-05-2010 and procured medical certificates for his fake illness with the intention to cover up his guilt of involving in a criminal case and his arrest by civil Police.

Count no.2:- Involvement of Sri M. Ramesh, PC 1361 in Cr.No.161/2010, u/s.392 IPC. On 18-04-2010 along with his nephew Sri M. Venkata Krishna intercepted the vehicle of victim Sri D. Dayanand and robed cash of Rs.9700/- one gold ring and Nokia cell phone.

3. The respondent submitted his written statement, but not satisfied with the explanation offered, enquiry was ordered. With due participation of the respondent in the proceedings, the Enquiry Officer conducted enquiry and submitted his report dated 25-03-2011 to the disciplinary authority holding the charges as proved. Thereafter, the respondent was provided with a copy of the enquiry report and asked to submit his remarks, who in turn, submitted his remarks along with a copy of the order in CC No.736 of 2010 wherein the competent criminal Court has acquitted him of the criminal charges. But the disciplinary authority by proceedings dated 30-11-2012 imposed the penalty stated supra. Aggrieved thereby, the respondent filed the OA before the Tribunal. The Tribunal by the order impugned in this writ petition, set aside the penalty imposed subject to certain directions noted supra. Hence, this writ petition by the Department.

4. In the counter affidavit filed by the respondent, inter alia it is stated that in the remarks submitted by him, it was specifically brought to the notice of the disciplinary authority that the competent criminal Court has acquitted him of the self same charges, but the disciplinary authority without considering the same imposed penalty on him, which was rightly set aside by the Tribunal. It is also submitted that he reported sick w.e.f. 19-05-2010 to 02-07-2010 and during his sick period, he was arrested on 12-06-2010 and released on bail on 19-06-2010 and he was falsely implicated in the criminal case and as nothing could be recovered from him, and his involvement was based on presumptions, the criminal Court had acquitted him observing that the prosecution failed to prove his guilt beyond all reasonable doubt. That there is no misrepresentation to his superiors as he was already on sick leave