Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

1. Aggrieved by the interlocutory order of the A.P. Administrative Tribunal, in O.A. No. 2414 of 2006 dated 27.4.2006, whereby the petitioner was directed not to dismiss the 1st respondent-applicant from service, on the basis of the judgment of the Special Judge for SPE & ACB Cases, Vijayawada, in C.C. No. 40 of 2000 dated 4.3.2006, pending further orders, the present writ petition is filed by the Municipal Corporation of Guntur.

2. Brief facts, to the extent necessary, are that the 1st respondent-applicant was working as a Junior Assistant in the Municipal Corporation, Guntur. Consequent upon a trap laid by the A.C.B, while the 1st respondent-applicant was demanding and accepting a bribe of Rs. 800/- to do an official favour, a case was registered against her in C.C. No. 40 of 2000 before the Special Judge for SPE & ACB Cases, Vijayawada. The Special Judge, by order dated 4.3.2006, convicted the 1st respondent-applicant under Section 248(2) Cr.P.C. and sentenced her to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- for offences under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The 1st respondent-applicant preferred Criminal Appeal No. 390 of 2006, and this Court, by order in Crl. M.P. No. 436 of 2006 in Crl. Appeal No. 390 of 2006 dated 20.3.2006, suspended the sentence and granted her bail pending disposal of the criminal appeal on condition of her executing a bond of Rs. 10,000/- with two sureties each for a like sum to the satisfaction of the Special Judge for SPE & ACB Cases, Vijayawada. Apprehending that she may be dismissed from service, in view of the judgment rendered by the Special Judge for SPE & ACB Cases, Vijayawada, in C.C. No. 40 of 2000, the 1st respondent-applicant approached the Tribunal and sought for an interim direction to the respondents not to dismiss her from service in view of the suspension of the sentence by the High Court. The 1st respondent-applicant relied on an earlier order passed by the Tribunal, in O.A. No. 2857 of 2005 dated 25.6.2005, which in turn had relied on its earlier orders and the observations of this Court in W.P. No. 10515 of 2005 dated 29.4.2005. The Tribunal held that in view of the said orders, and with a view to maintain consistency, the petitioners herein must be directed not to dismiss the 1st respondent-applicant from service based on the judgment of the Special Judge for SPE & ACB Cases, Vijayawada, in C.C. No. 40 of 2000 dated 4.3.2006, pending further orders. The Government, in its Memo No. 2935/VIG.IV.2/2001-03 dated 18.3.2006, while informing that the Special Judge for SPE & ACB Cases, Vijayawada had pronounced judgment on 4.3.2006, and had convicted and sentenced the 1st respondent-applicant to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and also to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- and in default to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of three months, requested the 1st petitioner herein to obtain a copy of the judgment and advised them to dismiss the 1st respondent-applicant from service in view of her conviction and as per the orders of the Government in G.O. Ms. No. 2, G.A. (SER.C) Dept., dated 4.1.1999.

W.P. No. 7829 of 2006:

3. Aggrieved by the interlocutory order of the Tribunal, in O.A. No. 642 of 2005 dated 7.2.2005, suspending the proceedings of the 2nd petitioner herein, dated 28.2.2005, the present writ petition is filed.

4. The 1st respondent-applicant was appointed as a Tracer on 6.10.1990 in the Office of the Commissioner, Bodhan Municipality. He was subsequently promoted as a Town Planning Building Overseer on 11.10.2002. While he was working in the Office of the Commissioner, Bodhan Municipality, the 1st respondent-applicant was trapped by the A.C.B on 6.4.1993 and was placed under suspension on 18.10.1993. He was subsequently reinstated into duty with effect from 31.7.1999. The Principal Special Judge for SPE & ACB Cases-cum-IV Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, in C.C. No. 2 of 1994 dated 14.10.2004, convicted the 1st respondent-applicant under Section 248(2) Cr.P.C. Assailing the said judgment, the 1st respondent -applicant filed Crl. Appeal No. 2348 of 2004 and this Court, in Crl. M.P. No. 6547 of 2004 in Crl. Appeal No. 2348 of 2004 dated 8.11.2004, passed the following order:

The petitioner shall be released on bail on the same terms and conditions that were imposed by the Court below. On such execution, the execution of sentence stands suspended.

5. In his proceedings dated 28.2.2005, the 2nd petitioner took note of the fact that the 1st respondent-applicant was found guilty of the charges framed against him under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and was convicted under Section 248(2) Cr.P.C. by the Principal Special Judge for SPE & ACB Cases, City Civil Court, Hyderabad. The 2nd petitioner dismissed the 1st respondent-applicant from service with immediate effect, in exercise of the powers conferred under Clause (X) of Rule 9 read with Sub-rule (1) of Rule 20 of the A.P.C.S (CC & A) Rules, 1991 and as required under the proviso to Rule 9 of the A.P.C.S (CC & A) Rules, 1991, G.O. Ms. No. 568 dated 23.5.1981 and G.O. Ms. No. 255 dated 17.5.1984. Aggrieved thereby the 1st respondent-applicant filed O.A. No. 642 of 2005 before the Tribunal. The Tribunal, relying on its earlier orders in O.A. No. 2857 dated 24.6.2005 and the observations of this Court in W.P. No. 10515 of 2005 dated 29.4.2005, held that, in order to maintain consistency, the proceedings dated 28.2.2005 should be suspended pending further orders. Aggrieved thereby, the present writ petition is filed.

W.P. No. 16322 of 2006:

7. This writ petition is filed against the order of the Tribunal, in O.A. No. 3425 of 2006 dated 21.6.2006, whereby the Tribunal directed the petitioners herein to keep the 1st respondent-applicant out of service and continue him under suspension, pending disposal of the criminal appeal by the High Court, by paying subsistence allowance in accordance with the rules. The respondent-applicant was working as a Selection Grade Secretary in the Agricultural Market Committee, Khammam. He was trapped by the ACB, on 24.3.2000, while accepting a bribe of Rs. 2,250/- and was thereafter suspended from service, vide G.O. Ms. No. 507 dated 15.5.2000, with effect from 15.5.2000. The respondent-applicant was convicted in C.C. No. 34 of 2001 by the Special Judge for SPE & ACB Cases, Hyderabad and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act and also to pay a fine of Rs. 2,250/- under Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. Aggrieved thereby the petitioner preferred an appeal and this Court, by order in Crl. M.P. No. 814 of 2006 in Crl. A. No. 679 of 2006 dated 6.6.2006, suspended the sentence imposed on the respondent-applicant. Apprehending that he would be dismissed from service, pursuant to the order of conviction in C.C. No. 34 of 2001 dated 10.5.2006, the respondent-applicant approached the A.P. Administrative Tribunal. He relied on the judgment of the Apex Court in State of Maharashtra v. Chandhrabhan 1983 (2) SLR 493, and sought a declaration that the action of the respondents, in not taking steps to reinstate him into service, was improper, illegal and unjust. The Government Pleader, on the other hand, relied on the judgment of the Apex Court in K.C. Sareen v. C.B.I. Chandigarh 2001 (2) ALD (Crl.) 398 (SC) : 2001 AIR SCW 3339 and on the Government Memo No. 1621/SPL.B/2001-1 G.A. (SPL.B) Department dated 26.11.2001. The Tribunal held that the case of the respondent-applicant was squarely covered by the judgment of the Apex Court in Chandhrabhan's case (supra). The Tribunal also took note of the fact that the Government, in its Memo No. 3907/71/A2/Fr-II/99, dated 28.2.2000, in view of the judgment of the Apex Court in Chandhrabhan's case (supra), had ordered that a Government Servant under suspension, whether he was lodged in prison or released on bail on his conviction, pending consideration of his appeal, must be paid subsistence allowance. The Tribunal held that, since the respondent-applicant had been suspended with effect from 15.5.2000, he must be continued under suspension by paying subsistence allowance till the disposal of the criminal appeal pending before this Court. While holding that the relief claimed by the respondent-applicant, of reinstatement into service pending disposal of the criminal appeal before the High Court, could not be granted, the Tribunal directed the petitioners herein to keep the respondent-applicant out of service and continue him under suspension pending disposal of the criminal appeal by the High Court, by paying subsistence allowance in accordance with the rules. Aggrieved thereby the respondent-applicant approached this Court filing W.P. No. 13225 of 2006. This Court, while dismissing the writ petition at the stage of admission, by order dated 3.7.2006, took note of the fact that the respondent-applicant was assailing the action of the petitioners herein in continuing him under suspension in spite of the fact that his conviction by the Special Judge for SPE & ACB Cases, Hyderabad was suspended pending criminal appeal. This Court noted that the Tribunal, taking into consideration the principles laid down by the Apex Court in Chandhrabhan's case (supra), had directed continuation of the petitioner under suspension and payment of subsistence allowance in accordance with the rules and, in view of the same, it did not find any ground to interfere with the order of the Tribunal. During the pendency of proceedings before the Tribunal, the respondent-applicant was dismissed from service vide proceedings dated 20.6.2006. A copy of the order was served on the respondent-applicant on 8.7.2006, after orders were passed by the Tribunal in O.A. No. 3425 of 2006 on 21.6.2006 and by this Court, in W.P. No. 13325 of 2005, on 3.7.2006. It is stated that, aggrieved by the said order of dismissal from service, the respondent-applicant approached the Tribunal in O.A. No. 1976 of 2006 which is still pending before the Tribunal.