ORDER: (Per Hon'ble Sri Justice Ghulam Mohammed) This writ petition is filed seeking to quash the order dated 04-03- 2008 passed in O.A.No.3368 of 2005 along with M.A.No.516 of 2008 on the file of Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad. 2. The respondents herein are the applicants in the above O.A. and they seek to challenge the punishment of reduction in time scale of pay by two stages for a period of two years, imposed vide D.O.No.1393/No.L&O/B1/254/95, dated 26- 05-2003, which was confirmed in appeal and revision. The substance of the charge against the respondents - police constables is that while on beat duty, they have stopped a lorry to collect mamools in the name of entry fee and on seeing the vehicle of Assistant Commissioner of Police, both of them ran away from the spot. On enquiry with the lorry driver, cleaner and wood contractor, it was revealed that the police constables have demanded mamool terming it as 'entry fee' from the lorry driver. The Assistant Commissioner of Police, Malakpet, has made an entry in the beat book and sent a report. Thereafter, both the police constables/respondents have been placed under suspension and a regular departmental enquiry was conducted. The Enquiry Officer after considering the material on record held the charges as 'not proved'. The disciplinary authority - Commissioner of Police issued dissent note and called for the explanation of the delinquent officers. After receipt of explanation, final order was passed to the effect that the charge was proved to the extent of 'stopping the lorry' and proceeded to impose the punishment. 3. Heard learned Government Pleader appearing for petitioner and perused the record, including the impugned order. 4. Learned Government Pleader contended that the respondents-police constables have stopped the lorry and demanded money from the lorry driver, which was paid, and on seeing the vehicle of Assistant Commissioner of Police, they ran away from the spot, therefore the conduct indicates that they have collected the money and escaped from being caught by the higher official and the charges can be held as proved. Thus, the Tribunal erred in setting aside the finding of guilt and the punishment imposed. 5. Thus, the Tribunal erred in setting aside the finding of guilt and the punishment imposed. 5. We have perused the order of the disciplinary authority imposing the punishment and impugned order in O.A. It appears that the enquiry officer submitted a report to the effect that the charge of police constables stopping the lorry and collecting mamools in the names of 'entry fee' on 23-02-1995 was held as 'not proved'. However, the disciplinary authority differed with the finding and after recording reasons for taking a different view, issued show cause notice to the respondents to which they have submitted explanation. After considering the explanation and the material on record, the disciplinary authority imposed the punishment of reduction in time scale of pay by two stages for a period of two years. The appeal and revision preferred by the respondents have been rejected. 6. The allegation against the respondents is that they have stopped the lorry and demanded money from the lorry driver in the name of 'entry fee' and on seeing the vehicle of Assistant Commissioner of Police, they ran away from the spot. The statements of six persons have been recorded in connection with the incident. An overall reading of the statement do not show that the police constables demanded money from the lorry driver and no money was recovered. Merely because the delinquent officials ran away from the spot does not prove that there was a positive demand for money to be collected from the lorry driver. The disciplinary authority has recorded that the 'stopping the lorry is proved'. This by itself does not prove the allegation of demand and collection of money from the lorry driver. It also appears that witnesses have turned hostile and the Tribunal rightly found that the demand of money was not proved and the conduct of running away from the spot does not prove the allegation. In the circumstances, we do not find any error jurisdiction warranting interference in the impugned order of the Tribunal. 7. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed at the stage of admission.