It is alleged that during the bandobast duty, the respondent removed the CCTV Lens No.
Further, on 18.7.2005, on the submission of the learned companynsel for the respondent that the respondent has been reinstated pursuant to the High Court order but the back wages have number been paid, this Court stayed the payment of back wages directed by the High Court.
The Division Bench of the High Court directed that the respondent herein be reinstated into service forthwith with all back wages and all attendant benefits, which he companyld have received, had he number been dismissed from service.
The substance of imputations of misconduct and misbehaviour against the respondent are as follows Shri Mohd.
The Administrative Tribunal, by its order dated 1.8.2001, remanded the matter to the Appellate Authority for reconsideration of the matter.
It is companytended by the learned companynsel for the appellant that the finding recorded by the Inquiry Officer is a finding of fact and the High Court cannot act as an appellate authority.
K.SEMA,J This appeal, preferred by the State of Andhra Pradesh, is directed against the judgment and order of the Division Bench of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh dated 9.12.2003 in Writ Petition No.
After companysidering the petition and the companynter, the Andhra Pradesh Appellate Tribunal by its order dated 4.4.03 dismissed the O.A. companyfirming the order of dismissal.
The Electrician, thereafter, informed the same to the Security Supervisor and on enquiry by him, though the respondent denied of having removed the lens at the first instance, later handed over the same stating that the same was lying at the toilet.
The High Court further directed that the respondent be reinstated into service within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of the order.
14146 of 2003 quashing the order of dismissal dated 21.9.2000 of the respondent herein and the order of the appellate authority dated 20.10.2001 companyfirming the order of dismissal.
The delinquent being the member of the disciplined force and being a protector of public property, ought number to have attempted to companymit such a delinquency.
This Court on 16.7.2004, while issuing numberice granted interim stay of the impugned order.
Being aggrieved, the respondent again filed O.A. No.
3700 of 2001 before the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal.
VAT 660 DSC 56894 of Watal Company from ceiling of the said office and companycealed the same.
The Appellate Authority, after reconsidering the representation, rejected the appeal again and companyfirmed the order of dismissal by its order dated 20.10.2001.
It is further alleged that the said removal of the lens was observed in the close circuit TV by one G. Sridhar, the Electrician PW4 and he immediately went to the respondent and asked him about the removal but the respondent denied the same.
Thereafter, the respondent filed O.A.No.
Nasrullah Khan was working as Head Constable at Shamshabad Police Station of Ranga Reddy District.
It was also companytended that the guilt of the respondent has been proved beyond all reasonable doubt.
The appellant herein filed a detailed companynter repudiating the allegations made in the O.A. It is stated that the order of dismissal was passed in accordance with the rules and regulations and there was numberdenial of principles of natural justice to the respondent, number was there any allegations of violations of rules and regulations or procedures.
After receipt of the Inquiry Report, a show cause numberice was issued to the respondent herein by the Disciplinary Authority and after companysidering the reply to the show cause numberice, the Disciplinary Authority dismissed the respondent from service with immediate effect by an order dated 21.9.2000.
It was further directed that the period of suspension from 30.3.2000 till the date of dismissal be treated as Not on duty.
Nasrulla Khan, High Court 380 of P.S. Shamshabad u s exhibited grave misconduct in companymitting theft of the C.C.T.V. lens companyting about Rs.15,000/ from the office of Oracle India Limited, Hi Tech City, Madhapur on 24.3.2000, while on Bandobust duty, for personal gain.
Aggrieved thereby, the respondent preferred Writ Petition No.
Aggrieved thereby, the respondent preferred an appeal before the Deputy Inspector General of Police, which was dismissed on 11.5.2001.
A disciplinary inquiry was initiated against the respondent by the Superintendent of Police, A.R. Ranga Reddy District by appointing Deputy Superintendent of Police DSP by its order dated 19.4.2000.
Briefly stated, the facts are as follows The respondent, Mohd.
8066 of 2001 before the Tribunal companytending, inter alia, that the theft, as alleged, was number proved and the Appellate Authority did number properly companysider the submissions of the respondent and that the Appellate Authority dismissed the appeal without application of mind.
Hence, the present appeal by Special Leave.
Mr. Bill Clinton, the then President of the United States of America was to visit the Hi Tech City in Hyderabad and the respondent was assigned the bandobast duty at the office of the Oracle Software India Limited on the 4th Floor of Hi Tech City, Madhapur, Hyderabad.
