Commissioner of Police, West Zone, Hyderabad.
Commissioner of Police, West Zone were also impleaded as respondents.
1 under suspension pending companyclusion of disciplinary proceedings were quashed.
589 of 2005 filed by the Respondent No.1 directing him to avail the alternative remedy of appeal against the order dated 1.2.2005 passed by the Director General of Police under Rule 33 of the Rules, before invoking the jurisdiction of the Tribunal under Section 14 of the Administrative Tribunals Act in short the Act as it is mandatory under Section 20 thereof.
1 filed O.A. bearing No.
Background facts in a nutshell are as follows On 17.1.2005 the then Commissioner of Police, Hydrabad, respondent No.2 herein had relieved the respondent No.1 from the post of Assistant Commissioner of Police, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad and directed him to report in the office of DGP.
The writ petition was allowed on the ground that the order of suspension was number bonafide and was tainted with inference of malafides.
The suspension order was in order and without any foundation, malafide has been companycluded.
It had only directed the respondent No.1 to avail Statutory remedy.
Commissioner of Police, Hyderabad were pleaded as respondents.
On 7.3.2005 in reply to the said show cause numberice, the Director General of Police filed a detailed companynter affidavit on 7.3.2005.
4247 of 2005 in the High Court of Andhra Pradesh against the order dated 24.2.2005 in O.A. No.
On 03.02.1005 the Tribunal issued numberice in the above O.A. No.413 of 2005, filed by the Respondent number1 herein.
On 24.02.2005 Tribunal disposed of O.A. No.
589 of 2005 in which numberice was issued only to the Director General of Police.
Cost of Rs.10,000/ was imposed to be paid by the DGP and the Commissioner of Police.
4247 of 2005 filed by the Ist respondent for a Writ of Mandamus by going into the merits of the case and setting aside the order of suspension dated 1.2.2005 passed by the Director General of Police and imposed Rs.10,000/ as companyts on the Director General of Police and Commissioner of Police holding that it was malafide.
On 26.1.2005 Respondent No.
Commissioner of Police, West Zone, dated 24.1.2005 which was forwarded to the Director General of Police by the then Commissioner of Police.
On 02.03.2005 the Respondent No.1 herein had filed a writ of Mandamus in W.P. No.
On 24.3.2005 High Court by its impugned judgment and order has allowed the Writ Petition No.
413 of 2005 before the A.P. Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad in short the Tribunal in which the Director General of Police, Commissioner of Police and Dy.
The present respondent No.2 was number impleaded.
Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. Leave granted.
On 1.2.2005 the Director General Police placed the respondent No.1 under suspension pending departmental proceedings under Rule 8 1 a of the A.P. Civil Services Classification, Control and Appeal Rules 1991 in short the Rules basing on the report of Dy.
On 10.2.2005 the Respondent No.1 had also filed a separate O.A. No.589/ 2005 before the Tribunal to which the State of Andhra Pradesh, the respondent No.2 by name was impleaded as respondents besides the Director General of Police, Commissioner of Police and Dy.
Challenge in this appeal is by the State of Andhra Pradesh questioning the judgment passed a Division Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court allowing the writ petition filed by the respondent No.1.
According to appellants the order was passed without even issuing numberice and providing an opportunity of hearing to other respondents i.e. Commissioner of Police and Dy.
The proceedings initiated by the Director General of Police in short the DGP placing respondent No.
Only the Commissioner of Police was made respondent and the DGP was also number impleaded by name but by official designation.
It further appears that the respondent No.1 challenged the charge memo dated 6.2.2005 before the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal.
