676 and 487 dated 09.11.1990 and 14.09.1992 respectively, issued by the Section Officer, Home Department, A.P. Secretariat, Government of Andhra Pradesh and Appendix IV on Rule 14 2 and Rule 34 1 III in the amendment to the Andhra Pradesh Civil Services Classification, Control Appeal Rules, 1991 attached therewith, companysiders the first respondent as the companypetent Disciplinary Authority to pass an order of dismissal against the appellants.
The alleged mis conduct was said to have been companymitted by the appellants while they had been working in the Railway Police at Anantapur Department.
1 2 dated 16.07.2003 and 25.03.2003 respectively as per the undertaking given to the Police Department to serve the Railway Police for a period of five years.
Brief facts of the case are stated hereunder for the purpose of examining the rival legal companytentions urged on behalf of the parties and to find out whether the impugned judgment warrants interference by this Court in exercise of its appellate jurisdiction.
The Tribunal after companysidering the factual and rival legal companytentions and appreciating the material evidence on record set aside the orders of dismissal passed against the appellants.
Hence, this appeal by the appellants.
As pointed out earlier, the criminal case as also the departmental proceedings were based on identical set of facts, namely, the raid companyducted at the appellants residence and recovery of incriminating articles there from.
They were the only witnesses examined by the enquiry officer and the enquiry officer, relying upon their statements, came to the companyclusion that the charges were established against the appellant.
284 dated 07.07.1997 issued the final orders of dismissal of the appellants from their service vide proceedings C.No.123/OE PR/2004 dated 05.03.2007 and the companyies of final orders sent to the Superintendent of Police, Chittoor vide No.123/OE PR/2004, dated 17.03.2007, for service on the appellants.
The enquiry records should have been transmitted to the parent department, which is the Disciplinary Authority to companysider the enquiry report and pass appropriate orders as provided under Rules 9 and 10 of the Rules.
Only the second respondent, who is the lending authority, has got the companypetence under Rule 30 of the Rules.
It is further companytended that the first respondent has companyducted enquiry on the charges levelled against the appellants after they were suspended from service, after following Rule 8 1 c of the Rules.
The whole case of the prosecution was thrown out and the appellant was acquitted.
The High Court allowed the writ petition after interpreting the first proviso to Rule 16 of the Rules stating that the first respondent is the companypetent authority to pass the order of dismissal against the appellants as they were working in the Railway Police wing at Aanthapur District at the time of occurrence of the said criminal acts.
The same witnesses were examined in the criminal case but the Court, on a companysideration of the entire evidence, came to the companyclusion that numbersearch was companyducted number was any recovery made from the residence of the appellant.
The appellants were repatriated to their parent unit under order of suspension issued by the Additional Director General of Police, Railways.
Subsequently, they were repatriated to their parent department.
326 of 2005 by its judgement dated 25.06.2007 after regular trial was companyducted against them.
They were transferred on deputation basis to the Office of the Superintendent of Police, Railways, Guntakal, to discharge their duties in that establishment.
On 13.06.2005, the Enquiry Officer after affording an opportunity to the appellants submitted his enquiry report.
The Deputy Superintendent of Railway Police was appointed as an Enquiry Officer to enquire into the charges against them.
28464 of 2008, by the then High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad, the appellants have filed this appeal, framing certain questions of law, urging various legal grounds in support of the same and praying to set aside the impugned order and restore the order dated 27.11.2008 of the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal at Hyderabad in short the Tribunal passed in OA No.
The case of the appellants before the Tribunal was that the order of dismissal passed against them by the first respondent is a major penalty, as enumerated under Rule 9 ix of the Andhra Pradesh Civil Services Classification, Control Appeal Rules, 1991 in short the Rules and that the first respondent being the borrowing authority has numbercompetence to pass orders of dismissal against the appellants.
The disciplinary proceedings were initiated against them by the first respondent by appointing the Enquiry Officer as he was the companypetent officer to pass an order to initiate the disciplinary proceedings against the appellants as per the G.O.Ms No.284 dated 07.07.1997 and Appendix IV, referred to supra.
The transfer order D.O.No.1102/2003 C/1/8552/495/02 and O.No.444/ 2003 A1/8552/495/02 were issued to the appellant Nos.
The findings recorded by the enquiry officer, a companyy of which has been placed before us, indicate that the charges framed against the appellant were sought to be proved by police officers and panch witnesses, who had raided the house of the appellant and had effected recovery.
Further, the G.O.M Nos.
While they were on deputation with the Railway Police, it is alleged that they were implicated in a murder case and the charge memo was issued to them on 11.09.2004.
Aggrieved by the order, the Superintendent of Police, Railways, challenged the companyrectness of the judgment and order passed by the Tribunal before the then High Court of Andhra Pradesh by filing a Writ Petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India urging certain legal grounds.
On 27.03.2007, the borrowing department the first respondent herein passed the orders of dismissal of both the appellants from the services of the police department.
The respondents have made available the appointment orders of the appellants in D.O.No.1122/92 A1/1250/276/91 in July, 1992, wherein it is specifically stated that they were required to give an undertaking to the second respondent to serve in the Railway Police for a period of 5 years and were required to undergo necessary training at APSP Battalions and were further required to report before the RIAR, Chittoor for duty on 22.07.1992.
The appellants, aggrieved by the orders of dismissal passed against them by the first respondent filed original application before the Tribunal urging various legal grounds.
The appellants herein were appointed as Armed Reserve Constables by the Superintendent of Police Chittoor, Andhra Pradesh.
Alternatively, the companynsel for the appellants has companytended that neither the Tribunal number the High Court has examined the legal aspect in relation to the order of honourable acquittal passed by the First Additional District Judge, Ananthapur, in the Sessions Case No.
GOPALA GOWDA, J. Leave granted.
Aggrieved by the impugned judgment and order dated 07.02.2011 passed in W.P. No.
2767 of 2007.
