The disciplinary authority has jurisdiction to assess misconduct under the Prevention of Corruption Act, and judicial review by an appellate tribunal cannot substitute its findings without valid legal grounds.

1 The Principal Secretary to Government, Municipal Administration and Urban Development Department, A. P. Secretariat, Hyderabad, Andhra Pradesh and the Director of Town and Country Planning, Hyderabad are the appellants in this appeal. This appeal is directed against the judgment of the Division Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Writ Petition No. 14358 of 2001 confirming the judgment and order dated 22-2-2001 of the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal at Hyderabad allowing Original Application No. 6755 of 2000 filed by the respondent herein and setting aside the order issued by the appellant in GOMs No. 520 Municipal Administration and Urban Development Department dated 28-10-2000.

2 The background facts leading to the filing of this appeal be noted briefly and they are as follows:
The respondent herein at the relevant time was working as Deputy Director, Town and Country Planning in the Municipal Administration Department at Hyderabad. The Anti Corruption Department Bureau registered a case on 30-9-1992 under S.13(2) read with S.13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 with regard to the disproportionate assets possessed by the respondent herein and investigated into the case. The Director General, Anti Corruption Bureau, Government of Andhra Pradesh, submitted a report to the Government with regard to the disproportionate assets possessed by the respondent herein and recommended to refer the case to the Tribunal for Disciplinary Proceedings, Hyderabad for enquiry against the charged officer into the allegations of acquisition of assets disproportionate to the known sources of his income and also the violation of the Andhra Pradesh Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1964 and to submit a report to the Government of Andhra Pradesh. The Tribunal after conducting thorough inquiry and giving full opportunity to the parties submitted its report on 2-6-1997 finding the respondent M. Adinarayana guilty under both the charges framed against him. The Government after considering the report of the Tribunal by Memo No. 1593/82/93-6MA&UD dated 24-9-1997 issued a show cause notice to the respondent herein calling for his explanation to the findings given by the Tribunal.

3 The respondent instead of giving his explanation to the show cause notice, filed OA No. 7490 of 1997 before the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal challenging the show cause notice. The same was dismissed by its order dated 27-4-1998. The High Court disposed of the writ petition and reserved liberty to the charged officer to raise all objections as to the jurisdiction of the Tribunal as other issues before the Government in response to the show cause notice dated 24-9-1997. The Government once again issued a memo to the respondent herein to submit his explanation. The respondent submitted his explanation initially with regard to the jurisdiction of the Tribunal to enquire into Charge 1 and thereafter on 31-3-1999, submitted his reply with respect to the report of the Tribunal for Disciplinary Proceedings. The Government on consideration of the entire matter and explanation given by the respondent, issued orders in GOMs No. 520-MA&UD dated 28-10-2000 removing the respondent herein from service (Annexure P/1). The respondent filed OA No. 6755 of 2000 before the A. P. Administrative Tribunal challenging the above order of the Government. He contended that the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to enquire into Charge 1 and Charge 2 which was defective in nature and, accordingly, sought to quash the orders of the Government. The appellant filed a detailed counter affidavit before the Tribunal explaining the position. The Tribunal by its order dated 22-2-2001 set aside the disciplinary orders of the Government. The Government thereupon filed Writ Petition No. 14358 of 2001 before the High Court. The Division Bench of the High Court by order dated 6-6-2002 dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellant herein. Aggrieved against the said judgment, the appellant