The respondent instead of giving his explanation to the show cause numberice, filed A. No.
1593/82/93 6 MA UD dated 24.9.1997 issued a show cause numberice to the respondent herein calling for his explanation to the findings given by the Tribunal.
The Tribunal after companyducting 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.
409, G.A.D., dated 20.9.1996.
The respondent filed O.A. No.
7490 of 1997 before the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal challenging the show cause numberice.
The Anti Corruption Department Bureau registered a case on 30.9.1992 under Section 13 2 read with Section 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 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 numberice dated 24.9.1997.
Aggrieved against the said judgment, the appellants filed the above appeal.
No.520 MA UD dated 28.10.2000 removing the respondent herein from service Annexure P/1 .
No.304, G.A.D. Ser C , dated 3.6.1989.
The Tribunal by its order dated 22.2.
In the instant case, the TDP companyducted an enquiry and examined all the relevant records, material papers and witnesses and submitted their report to the Government.
He companytended that the Tribunal has numberjurisdiction to enquire into Charge I and Charge II which was defective in nature and, accordingly, sought to quash the orders of the Government.
She further submitted that the Administrative Tribunal is number a appellate authority and, therefore, he companyld number have acted as an appellate authority over the findings recorded by the TDP and accepted by the Government.
The appellant filed a detailed Counter Affidavit before the Tribunal explaining the position.
The Government once again issued a Memo to the respondent herein to submit his explanation.
The same was dismissed by its order dated 27.4.1998.
The above Section was amended by Act 6 of 1993.
The Government on companysideration of the entire matter and explanation given by the respondent, issued orders in G.O.Ms.
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 Andhra Pradesh Civil Services Conduct Rules, 1964 and to submit a report to the Government of Andhra Pradesh.
The Division Bench of the High Court by order dated 6.6.2002 dismissed the Writ Petition filed by the appellant herein.
6755/2000 before the A.P. Administrative Tribunal challenging the above order of the Government.
2001 set aside the disciplinary orders of the Government.
6755 of 2000 filed by the respondent herein and setting aside the order issued by the appellant in G.O.Ms.
The said Rule 3 was substituted by G.O.Ms.
It is further companytended that under the TDP Act and the Rules framed thereunder, the TDP is a fact finding authority and that the findings recorded by the TDP companyld number have been opposed by the Tribunal in as much as the Administrative Tribunal has numbersuch power.
The Government after companysidering the report of the Tribunal by Memo No.
Lakshmanan, J. 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.
The said Rule read as follows Rule 3.
This appeal is directed against the judgment of the Division Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Writ Petition No 14358 of 2001 companyfirming the judgment and order dated 22.2.2001 of the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal at Hyderabad allowing the Original Application No.
The background facts leading to the filing of this appeal be numbered 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.
Dr. AR.
The Government thereupon filed Writ Petition No.
The respondent submitted his explanation initially with regard to the jurisdiction of the Tribunal to enquire into the charge No.1 and thereafter on 31.3.1999, submitted his reply with respect to the report of the Tribunal for disciplinary proceedings.
520 Municipal Administration and Urban Development Department dated 28.10.2000.
14358 of 2001 before the High Court.
