Judgment

A. N. RAY, C. J. :- This appeal is by special leave from the judgment dated 13 June, 1974 of the Andhra Pradesh High Court quashing an order of dismissal. The principal question canvassed by the Attorney General is that the High Court should not have interfered with the findings of the Tribunal.

2. The State Government in the year 1964 received certain complaints alleging misconduct against the respondent. The Director of Anti-Corruption Bureau was asked to inquire and make a report. The Government in the light of advice tendered by the vigilance Commission referred the matter to the Tribunal constituted under Andhra Pradesh Civil Services (Disciplinary Proceedings Tribunal) Act, 1960.

3. Three charges were framed against the respondent. Broadly stated the charges were that the respondent claimed false travelling allowance on certain days in the months of January, April and September, 1964. The respondent denied the charges and submitted a written statement on 4 November, 1968. The Tribunal made inquiries and on 9 December, 1968 recommended dismissal of the respondent from the service.

4. The Government thereafter gave a notice to the respondent on 22 February, 1969 to show cause why the penalty of dismissal from service should not be imposed on him.On 20 March, 1969 the respondent submitted his written explanation. The Government after considering the explanation of the respondent, by an order dated 24 May, 1969 dismissed the respondent from service.

5. The respondent challenged the order of dismissal in the Andhra Pradesh High Court. The High Court by judgment dated 27 July, 1970 set aside the order of dismissal on the ground that the recommendations of the Tribunal were not communicated to the respondent along with the notice regarding the proposed punishment of dismissal. The High Court observed that it was open to the punishing authority to issue a fresh show cause notice regarding the proposed punishment after communicating the enquiry report and the recommendations of the Tribunal.

6. The Government thereafter complied with the directions of the High Court. The Government cancelled the order of dismissal dated 24 May, 1969. The Government, however, ordered that the respondent shall be deemed to have been under suspension from service from 21 May, 1969 until further orders. The order of suspension was challenged by the respondent and set aside by the Andhra Pradesh High Court on 22 March, 1970.

7. The Government then issued fresh notices dated 16 September, 1970 and 25 September, 1970 to the respondent and communicated the report of the Tribunal and the recommendations of the Tribunal and the Vigilance Commission regarding the proposed penalty. The respondent submitted his explanation on 6 and 23 October, 1970. The Government considered the same. The Commerce Department thereafter by an order dated 5 May, 1972 dismissed the respondent from service.

8. The charges against the respondent were that he made three false claims for travelling allowance for three journeys. The first journey was on 3 January, 1964 from Rajahmundry to Hyderabad. The second journey was on 19 April, 1964 from Rajahmundry to Hyderabad and Hyderabad to Rajahmundry on 24 April, 1964. The third journey was from Rajahmundry to Guntur on 13 September, 1964 and Guntur to Rajahmundry on 16 September, 1964.

9. The respondent in his written statement filed before the Tribunal denied the charges and maintained that he travelled by first class on the days mentioned in the claim for travelling allowance. He stated that he travelled by first class from Rajahmundry to Hyderabad on 3 January, 1964 in accordance with his tour programme and claimed the travelling allowance. He also said that he travelled by first class from Rajahmndry to Hyderabad on 19 April, 1964 and from Hyderabad to Rajahmundry on 24 April, 1964 and claimed travelling allowance.

10. In Exhibit P-45 which was his signed statement dated 8 January, 1967, he stated that on 3 January, 1964 he went wi