Point of Law - When trial for criminal offence is conducted it should be in accordance with proof of the offence as per the evidence defined under the provisions of the Evidence Act

ORDER:

P.Naveen Rao, J.

This writ petition is filed praying to grant the following relief:

“…to issue a writ, order or direction particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus to set aside the orders of the Hon’ble Tribunal for Disciplinary Proceedings dated 01/08/2008 in Tribunal Enquiry Case No. 31 of 2004 and the orders of the Hon’ble A. P. Administrative Tribunal dated 03/01/2013 in O.A.No 5403 of 2010 to the extent of punishment of stoppage of pension of the petitioner is concerned by declaring the said orders as perverse suffer from lack of evidence harsh and disproportionate to the charge arbitrary vindictive illegal and violation of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India and direct the respondents to pay pension and all pensionary benefits to the petitioner with time to time revisions and pass….”

2. Heard Sri C. Srinivasa Baba, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader for Services – I, appearing for the respondents.

3. At the relevant point of time, petitioner was working as Inspector of Survey Settlement and Land Records, Mahabubnagar District. On a complaint lodged that petitioner demanded and accepted an amount of Rs.2500/-, from the complainant to do official favour, the Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB) laid a trap on 29.03.2003. According to ACB, the trap was successful and the amount of Rs.2500/-, was recovered from petitioner.

4. Based on the report of ACB, instead of authorizing prosecution before the Criminal Court, petitioner was placed on defence before the Tribunal For Disciplinary Proceedings (for short TDP). The Tribunal framed charge alleging that “actuated by corrupt motive and in abuse of official position on 29.03.2003, demanded and accepted an amount of Rs.2500/- as illegal gratification other than legal remuneration from the complainant Sri K. Siva Kumar, S/o. Sri K. Basappa, resident of Nawabpet, Mahabubnagar District, for showing official favour in demarcating and fixing boundaries of his agricultural land in Sy.No.785/3, situated at Yenamangandla Village of Nawabpet Mandal and thereby guilty of misconduct within the meaning of Rule 2(b) of the A.P. Civil Services (Disciplinary Proceedings Tribunal), Rules 1989”. The TDP held petitioner guilty of the charge levelled against him. During the pendency of proceedings before TDP, petitioner retired from service. Based on the finding recorded by the TDP, Government passed orders in G.O.Ms.No.413, Revenue (VIGILANCE.IV.2) Department, dated 11.05.2010, withholding the entire pension and pensionary benefits of petitioner. In substance, the petitioner is held guilty of accepting illegal gratification to do official favour.

5. Challenging the order of punishment imposed by the Government, petitioner filed O.A.No.5403 of 2010, before the Hon’ble Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal (for short ‘the Tribunal’). The Tribunal, agreed with the finding recorded by TDP. However, the Tribunal found that withholding the entire pension and pensionary benefits of employee retired from service would cause hardship to the employee, modified the punishment, directing release of other pensionary benefits, other than the pension, if any, payable to the applicant and are not liable to be stopped.

6. The petitioner challenges the order of the Tribunal and also the finding recorded by TDP, dated 01.08.2008.

7. Though petitioner does not challenge the order of punishment imposed by the Government but challenges the order of TDP, we have heard learned counsel for the petitioner on merits.

8. According to the complainant, he applied to conduct survey and demarcate the land in Sy.No.785/3 of Yenmangandla Village, with great difficulty survey was conducted but the report of survey was not furnished to him; that he was made to visit the office of petitioner again and again, and petitioner demanded an amount of Rs.3000/- but he was not willing to pay the bribe. With great difficulty he paid Rs.500/- and for the balance amount, he was asked to come to th