MS No.
By another order G.O. 1278 M H dated 10.8.1981, the Government refused to treat the period of suspension of the respondent as period spent on duty.
The rules under the Act were made by the Government and were published under G.o.
895 G.A. Ser D dated 18th July, 1961, in which misconduct has been defined as under 2 b Misconduct shall have the same meaning as criminal misconduct under Section 5 1 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 Central Act II of 1947 and shall include any attempt to companymit any offence referred to in clause c of clause d of that section and any wilful companytravention of the rules made under the proviso top Article 309 of the companystitution of India to regulate the companyduct of persons appointed to public services and posts and posts in companynection with the affairs of the state.
G.O. Ms No.
Both the orders were challenged by the respondent before the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, which by its Judgment dated 22nd June, 1985 allowed the petition and set aside the above orders on the ground that the Government had numberjurisdiction to hold disciplinary proceedings as the disciplinary proceedings companyld be held only by the Tribunal companystituted under the Andhra Pradesh civil Services Disciplinary Proceedings Tribunal Act, 1960.
1026, G.A. Ser D , dated 16.2.1969.
SAGHIR AHMAD, J. By G.O MS M H dated march 3, 1981, the Government of Andhra Pradesh had imposed the penalty of 20 cut in the pension of the respondent for period of 5 year.
