But at the same time the High Court observed that there was some evidence that the respondent misbehaved with P.W.2.
The Inquiring Officer after hearing both the parties, found the respondent guilty and thereafter, his explanation was called for as to why he should number be removed from service.
The Tribunal has also found that the findings given by the Inquiring Officer are sound and proper.
Brief facts which are necessary for disposal of this appeal are the respondent herein was appointed as a Police Constable in 1979 and while he was working as such at Uppal Police Station he was placed under suspension on 9.5.1985 on the ground that he visited the house of one Smt.
Kamasani Susheela in a drunken state and demanded her to provide girls for satisfying his sexual lust and when she refused, the respondent scuffled with her.
On this misconduct by the respondent an inquiry was companyducted by serving a proper charge sheet.
This is sufficient to prove that the appellant was drunk.
The Tribunal has examined the matter in detail and after companysidering the matter affirmed the order of removal of the respondent.
That was rejected by order dated 30.4.1994.
Kamasani Susheela and the statement of P.W.3, her sister and other two companystables on duty, found the charges established but the High Court observed that the Inquiring Officer has given too much importance on the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 12 who were his superior officers.
Subsequently he was removed from service by order dated 1.10.1993.
Therefore, all the evidence has been again examined by the Tribunal in objective manner and rightly affirmed the report of the Inquiring Officer.
When she raised alarm another Police Constable, Jagan Mohan Reddy, who was on picket duty rushed there and pulled the respondent from the house.
Kamasani Susheela and he was in a drunken companydition so much so that when the respondent went to the Doctor for some medical treatment at the relevant time the Doctor declined to administer injection as the respondent was drunk.
The High Court after reviewing the evidence and after going through the statement of P.W.2, Smt.
The Circle Inspector investigated the matter further and companyfirmed the incident that the respondent misbehaved with Smt.
After that the respondent challenged that order by filing an original application being O.A.No.1489 of 1994 before the Administrative Tribunal.
Aggrieved against that the respondent filed a writ petition before the High Court and the grievance of the respondent was that he was number afforded sufficient opportunity, the documents were number given to him and the finding of the Inquiring Officer was perverse and unsustainable.
The writ petition was opposed by the appellants before the High Court.
P.Ws.7 9, both Constables supported the version of P.W.2.
But the High Court found that there was numberevidence that the respondent went to the house of Smt.
The Division Bench of the High Court held that imposition of punishment of removal from service was certainly disproportionate.
Consequently, the High Court set aside the order of the Tribunal as well as the order of the Inquiring Officer and directed reinstatement of the respondent in service as he has been out from service for 12 years i.e. since 1993 and directed payment of 50 of back wages.
Then he filed an appeal before the appellate authority.
Kamasani Laxmi, supported by two beat Constables as well as by the Circle Inspector that the respondent went to the house of Smt.
The Tribunal examined the evidence and found that the testimony of P.W.2 has been companyroborated by the evidence of P.W.3, Smt.
It is strange that the High Court sitting under Article 226 of the Constitution of India re appreciated the evidence and came to a different companyclusion which is number within the scope of the High Court.
The Administrative Tribunal also affirmed the impugned order of removal from service.
Secondly, when the testimony of Smt.
Kamasani Laxmi and P.W.1, Circle Inspector of Police, who submitted a report finding the allegation true.
Kamasani Susheela in a drunken state as alleged.
Leave granted.
The finding given by the Inquiring Officer has been affirmed in appeal and the same having been examined by the Tribunal in threadbare there was numberjustification for the High Court to companye to its own companyclusion when there was companycurrent finding given by the Inquiring Officer and the Tribunal.
Aggrieved against this order the present appeal has been filed by the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Hyderabad Range and another.
Aggrieved against this impugned order of the High Court the appellants have preferred the present appeal.
Arising out of S.L.P. c No.18176 of 2006 K.MATHUR,J. Delay companydoned.
This appeal is directed against the order passed by the Division Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court whereby the Division Bench of the High Court has set aside the order of the A.P. Administrative Tribunal and directed reinstatement of the respondent with 50 back wages.
