Judgment : L. Narasimha Reddy, J. 1. The 1st respondent herein (for short, ‘the respondent’) is employed as a Constable in Nizamabad District. He was issued a charge memo on 09.05.1995 alleging that he was involved in a criminal case, being Crime No.9 of 1995 on the file of P.S. Morthad under Section 420 I.P.C. and that he has cheated one Tudem Lingaiah to a tune of Rs.30,000/-. It was alleged that the respondent and another have offered Mr. Tudem Lingaiah a sum of Rs.90,000/- fake money, in case the latter pays them Rs.30,000/-. The circumstances under which the said incident was noticed and the follow-up action was taken, was mentioned in the charge memo. On the same allegations, Crime No.9 of 1995 came to be tried in C.C.No.77 of 1995 by the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Armoor. 2. The respondent submitted his explanation denying the charge. He stated that it was himself and another Constable, who have chased and caught hold of Batchu Srinivas and Bompally Srinivas, A1 and A2, in C.C.No.77 of 1995 on noticing that they were involved in some unlawful activity and instead of rewarding them for the timely action taken by them, some higher officials have implicated him in a false case. Not satisfied with the explanation, the appointing authority, the 3rd petitioner, appointed the Sub-Divisional Police Officer, Kamareddy, as an enquiry officer. A report was submitted on 31.05.1997 holding that the charge against the respondent proved. Taking the same into account, the 3rd petitioner passed an order, dated 07.09.2006, imposing the punishment of dismissal from service. Appeal filed to the Deputy Inspector General of Police, the 2nd petitioner, and revision to the 1st petitioner, were rejected on 10.01.2007 and 23.11.2007, respectively. 3. Aggrieved by that, the respondent filed O.A.No.7336 of 2008 before the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad. Apart from pleading that the findings of enquiry officer were perverse, the respondent also stated that C.C.No.77 of 1995 ended in clean acquittal through judgment, dated 29.01.2000, and that there was no basis for the 3rd petitioner in imposing punishment of dismissal from service. The O.A. was opposed by the petitioners. 4. Through its order, dated 09.12.2010, the Tribunal allowed the O.A. The same is challenged in this writ petition. 5. The O.A. was opposed by the petitioners. 4. Through its order, dated 09.12.2010, the Tribunal allowed the O.A. The same is challenged in this writ petition. 5. Learned Government Pleader for Services – I submits that though the allegations that led to initiation of disciplinary proceedings on the one hand and prosecution of the respondent and three others, on the other are almost same, the parameters for determination thereof are substantially different. He contends that acquittal in the criminal case was on some technical grounds and that the same cannot entail in dropping of the disciplinary proceedings. He submits that the Tribunal did not take this subtle difference into account, and had set aside the order of dismissal, mainly on the ground that the respondent was acquitted in the criminal case. 6. Smt. Marie Desai, learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, submits that the very charge against the respondent was that he was involved in a criminal case and that being the fact of the matter, acquittal in the said criminal case must automatically entail in dropping of the charge. She contends that the acquittal in the criminal case was not on any technical ground, but on merits, and that the trial Court recorded the specific finding to the effect that the case against the respondent is cooked up one. She submits that the Tribunal has taken into account, the precedents governing the facts and has arrived at a just and proper conclusion. 7. The only charge framed against the respondent is as under. “Involvement in Cr.No.9/95 u/s. 420 IPC of P.S. Morthad cheating a person for Rs.30,000/- to give Rs.90,000/- value to one Tudem Lingaiah, r/o. Jinnaram (V) of Adilabad District.” 8. In a way, this charge has two facets. The first is about the figuring of the respondent as one of the accused in Crime No.9 of 1995 and nothing more. In case a Government employee figures as an accused in a criminal case, it certainly justifies disciplinary action. The second facet of the charge is that, he has cheated one Tudem Lingaiah, by offering to give him Rs.90,000/-, in return for Rs.30,000/-. 9. In case a Government employee figures as an accused in a criminal case, it certainly justifies disciplinary action. The second facet of the charge is that, he has cheated one Tudem Lingaiah, by offering to give him Rs.90,000/-, in return for Rs.30,000/-. 9. The basis for the allegation was that a Constable of Morthad Police Station submitted a report on 11.02.1995 stating that himself, one Head Constable and two other Constables proceeded to Padgal Village for investigation in Crime No.7 of 1995 on two scooters and when they were returning to their Police Station after the work, information was given to them by Tudem Lingaiah to the effect that four persons have cheated him saying that if he pays Rs.30,000/-, they will pay him Rs.90,000/- in different currency and in the process, he received a box containing the amount of Rs.90,000/-. They are said to have examined the box and verified the matter and it emerged that Batchu Srinivas and Bompally Srinivas were involved in the matter. Further investigation is said to have revealed that the respondent was part of the entire episode along with another person. 10. In his explanation, the respondent stated that it was himself and another Constable by name Hidayath Ali Khan, who chased the two persons, when they were about to catch them, the Head Constable and another person from Morthad intervened and cooked up a false case against him. 11. In C.C.No.77 of 1995, Batchu Srinivas and Bompally Srinivas were shown as A1 and A2, whereas the respondent herein was shown as A4 and another Head Constable by name E. Mozes as A3. It is no doubt true that the 3rd petitioner is competent to continue the disciplinary proceedings even while the criminal case was pending. Obviously, because the respondent did not raise any plea to the effect that the nature of allegations in both the matters are identical, the enquiry officer proceeded with the matter and submitted his report on 31.05.1997. 12. Had any punishment been imposed against the respondent before the criminal case was disposed of, things would have been different altogether. The enquiry report was submitted on 31.05.1997 holding that the charge was proved and three years thereafter the criminal case was disposed of on 29.01.2000 holding that the prosecution has only cooked up the case against the accused. The 3rd petitioner passed the order imposing punishment, only on 07.09.2006. 13. The enquiry report was submitted on 31.05.1997 holding that the charge was proved and three years thereafter the criminal case was disposed of on 29.01.2000 holding that the prosecution has only cooked up the case against the accused. The 3rd petitioner passed the order imposing punishment, only on 07.09.2006. 13. This is not a case where the trial Court acquitted the accused, and in particular the respondent herein, on any technical grounds or by giving the benefit of doubt. After thoroughly discussing the evidence on record, the trial Court observed as under: “All these facts go to show that the case is a cooked up and prepared falsely against the accused as the evidence of PWs.1 to 4 is unbelievable and untrustworthy. Therefore, their testimony is to be discarded. In the said circumstances, I am of the opinion that the prosecution has failed to bring home the accused guilty of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. Therefore, the accused are found not guilty.” 14. It is a rare case in which a criminal Court went to the extent of observing that the case against the accused was cooked up. Such a finding would be possible not only when there exists a situation of the prosecution failing to prove its case, but also when it becomes evident that some effort was made to implicate an otherwise innocent person. That is what exactly happened in the present case. 15. The first element in the charge, which is mentioned in the preceding paragraphs, stands set aside or removed with the judgment of the trial Court in C.C.No.77 of 1995. The reason is that when the allegation itself is mere involvement in a criminal case, acquittal in the criminal case would leave nothing further to be done in the disciplinary proceedings. So far as the second facet is concerned, the 3rd petitioner did not receive any complaint from one Tudem Lingaiah. Though the said person figured as PW.3 in C.C.No.77 of 1995, the trial Court took note of the contradictions in his evidence and held the same to be unbelievable. Therefore, the second facet of charge also stands not proved. 16. Many a time, the persons facing disciplinary proceedings press for dropping of the same on the basis of the result in the criminal case. Therefore, the second facet of charge also stands not proved. 16. Many a time, the persons facing disciplinary proceedings press for dropping of the same on the basis of the result in the criminal case. To inject an element of objectivity into the cases of this nature, the Supreme Court in G.M. Tank vs. State of Gujarat and others( (2006) 5 SCC 446 ) stipulated certain parameters. It was held that the result in a criminal case would have its impact on the disciplinary proceedings only when: a) the charges in disciplinary proceedings and the criminal case are identical; and b) the acquittal in the criminal case is not on technical grounds, but on merits. 17. On both these aspects, the case on hand is covered. The Tribunal has applied the principle laid down therein. This Court does not find any basis to interfere with the order passed by the Tribunal. 18. Hence, the Writ Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. 19. The Miscellaneous Petitions filed in this Writ Petition shall stand disposed of.