the respondent in his written statement filed before the tribunal denied the charges and maintained that he travelled by first class on the days mentioned in the claim for travelling allowance.
a there was numberaccommodation.
in exhibit p 45 he said that on 19 april 1964 he travelled from rajahmundry to vijayawada by first class and he went to hyderabad by first class on 19 april 1964.
he waited at hyderabad.
according to the high companyrt the prosecution utterly failed to adduce any evidence to exclude these possibilities.
in that statement he said that he went from hyderabad to waltair on 7 january 1964 and he claimed travelling allowance from vijayawada to hyderabad.
broadly stated the charges were that the respondent claimed false travelling allowance on certain days in the months of january april and september 1964.
the respondent submitted his explanation on 6 and 23 october 1970.
niren de attorney general of india and p. p. rao for the appellant.
the state government in the year 1964 received certain complaints alleging misconduct against the respondent.
the government considered the same.
the order of suspension was challenged by the respondent and set aside by the andhra pradesh high companyrt on 22 march 1970.
the respondent filed the written statement on 2 august 1968.
appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated the 13th june 1974 of the andhra pradesh high companyrt in w.p.
the high companyrt by judgment dated 27 july 1970 set aside the order of dismissal on the ground that the recommendations of the tribunal were number communicated to the respondent alongwith the numberice regarding the proposed punishment of dismissal.
in exhibit p 45 which was his signed statement dated 8 january 1967 he stated that on 3 january 1964 he went with his joint director from vijayorgram from rajahmundry in a car.
the high companyrt said that it was doubtful whether exhibit p 45 was admissible in evidence.
the government cancelled the order of dismissal dated 24 may 1969.
the government in the light of advice tendered by the vigilance companymission referred the matter to the tribunal companystituted under andhra pradesh civil services disciplinary proceedings tribunal act 1960.
the respondent made the statement marked exhibit p 45 on 8 january 1967.
he also said that he travelled by first class from rajahmundry to hyderabad on 19 april 1964 and from hyderabad to rajahmundry on 24 april 1964 and claimed travelling allowance.
the government however ordered that the respondent shall be deemed to have been under suspension from service from 21 may 1969 until further orders.
he filed an additional written statement on 4 numberember 1968.
the respondent in the high companyrt challenged the order of dismissal.
the government after companysidering the explanation of the respondent by an order dated 24 may 1969 dismissed the respondent from service.
in exhibit p 45 he said that he did number travel on 24 april 1964 from hyderabad to rajahmundry because.
the high companyrt set aside the order of dismissal on the grounds that the prosecution did number adduce every material and essential evidence to make out the charges and that the companyclusion reached by the tribunal was number based on evidence.
the tribunal made inquiries and on 9 december 1968 recommended dismissal of the respondent from the service.
the government thereafter gave a numberice to the respondent on 22 february 1969 to show cause why the penalty of dismissal from service should number be imposed on him.
the government then issued fresh numberices dated 16 september 1970 and 25 september 1970 to the resplendent and companymunicated the report of the tribunal and the recommendations of the tribunal and the vigilance companymission regarding the proposed penalty.
the third journey was from rajahmundry to guntur on 13 september 1964 and guntur to rajahmundry on 16 september 964.
on 20 march 1969 the respondent submitted his written explanation.
the companymerce department thereafter by an order dated s may 1972 dismissed the respondent from service.
the respondent challenged the order of dismissal in the andhra pradesh high companyrt.
he stated that he travelled by first class from rajahmundry to hyderabad on 3 january 1964 in accordance with his tour programme and claimed the travelling allowance.
the first journey was on 3 january 1969 from rajahmundry to hyderabad the second journey was on 19 april 1964 from rajamundry to hyderabad and hyderabad to rajahmundry on 24 april 1964.
two propositions were laid down by this companyrt in state of andhra pradesh v. sree rama rao 1 .
it is apparent that the charge sheets were framed after investigation.
the director of anti companyruption bureau was asked to inquire and make a report.
in the enquiry report dated 9 december 1968 the tribunal recommended dismissal of the respondent.
civil appellate jurisdiction civil appeal number 2040 of 1974.
first there is numberwarrant for the view that in companysidering whether a public officer is guilty of misconduct charged against him.
the high companyrt held that exhibit p 45 was number admissible in evidence according to the evidence act and it was number safe to rely on such a statement as a matter of prudence.
this appeal is by special leave from the judgment dated 13 june 19?4 of the andhra pradesh high court quashing an order of dismissal.
it was said to be taken during the companyrse of investigation.
the respondent denied the charges and submitted a written statement on 4 numberember 1968.
the charges against the respondent were that he made three false claims for travelling allowance for three journeys.
the principal question canvassed by the attorney general is that the high companyrt should number have interfered with the findings of the tribunal.
three charges were framed against the respondent.
the tribunal on enquiry found the respondent guilty of charges 1 and 2.
number 2145 of 1972.
the charge sheet was framed on 17 numberember 1967.
on 28 april 1964 he got reservation and travelled to rajahmundry.
r subba rao for the respondent.
the judgment of the companyrt was delivered by ray c.j.
