ORDER : Bandaru Syamsunder, J. This Writ Petition is filed by the petitioners seeking Writ of Certiorari or any other appropriate Writ by calling for the records, relating to and connected with the Orders, dated 13.04.2016 in O.A.No.4166 of 2014 on the file of Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal and to quash or set aside the same, as illegal, contrary to law, in exercise of jurisdiction and unconstitutional, and to pass such other Order or Orders, which are deemed fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. 2. The respondent No.1, who is working as Police Constable in Gajuwaka Police Station, Duvvada Zone of Visakhapatnam city, filed O.A.No.4166 of 2014 assailing the legality of proceedings in D.O.No.412 of 2014, C.No.27/MPR/A10/2014, dated 15.05.2014, issued by the 2nd petitioner/2nd respondent, where under 2nd respondent imposed penalty PPI for three years without effect on future increments and pension. It is the contention of the 1st respondent before the Administrative Tribunal that he was appointed as Police Constable in the year 1993 and was deputed to Railway Police in the year 1995, and he was repatriated to his parent Department in the year 2000, and gain in the year 2001 deputed to Railway Police and was allotted to Bhimavaram Railway Police Station. He submits that while he was working at Bhimavaram Railway Police Station, he was falsely implicated in Crime No.92 of 2004 for the offences punishable under Sections 353, 323 of IPC and Section 3(i)x) of SC & ST (POA) Act, 1989, wherein he obtained anticipatory bail on 31.03.2005 with a direction to surrender before the Police and execute bonds for Rs.10,000/- with two sureties each. The 1st respondent submits that as per directions of the Court, along with other accused in the said case he approached the Railway Police Station, Nidadavole and requested the Station House Officer to accept the surrender and release him, who in turn stated that unless the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Railway Police Station, Visakhapatnam instruct him to accept the bail bonds, he will not accept, who also demanded Rs.15,000/- as a bribe for accepting the sureties, but he reduced the bribe amount to Rs.12,000/- on request of the 1st respondent. As the Station House Officer, Nidadavole Railway Police Station demanded the bribe, the 1st respondent contacted TV-9 Channel Investigation Team, who conducted sting operation, and recorded the entire episode of demand and acceptance of bribe by the officials concerned for accepting the bail bonds of the 1st respondent and other accused in the crime, and ultimately they were all placed under suspension, and later on removed from service also after conducting the departmental enquiry. The 1st respondent alleged that Mr. A. Satyanarayana, who was the Inspector of Railway Police, Rajahmundry at the relevant point of time, who had role in that episode, was also dismissed from the service initially by the Government, later on said person filed review application, wherein penalty was modified by withholding his annual grade increments for two years with cumulative effect on future increments and pension, vide G.O.Ms.No.269, Home (Ser.I) Department, dated 21.10.2010. Then, aggrieved by the same, the 1st respondent who is one of the victims, made a representation through proper channel to the Government to review its decision of reinstatement of Mr. A. Satyanarayana and take appropriate action against the then Principal Secretary to Home, Government of Andhra Pradesh by name Mr. P. Gautham Kumar, who retired from service. The Government considered the said representation of the 1st respondent as violation of Rule 17 of A.P.Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1964, directed the 2nd petitioner/Commissioner of Police, Visakhapatnam city to take stringent action against the 1st respondent/petitioner for finding fault with the Orders of the Government. Then, the 2nd petitioner issued a charge memo, dated 20.03.2014 to the 1st respondent under Rule 22 of A.P.Civil Services (CC & A) Rules, 1991, wherein the 1st respondent submitted detailed written statement, denying the charges. The 1st respondent alleged that without considering his written statement, the 2nd petitioner/2nd respondent has issued proceedings, imposing penalty of PPI for three years without effect on future increments and pension, which said to be illegal and arbitrary, and filed petition before the Administrative Tribunal challenging the same. 3. The 1st respondent alleged that without considering his written statement, the 2nd petitioner/2nd respondent has issued proceedings, imposing penalty of PPI for three years without effect on future increments and pension, which said to be illegal and arbitrary, and filed petition before the Administrative Tribunal challenging the same. 3. The petitioners herein, who are the respondents in O.A. filed counter-affidavit admitting the facts as pleaded in the petition before the Administrative Tribunal with regard to initiation of departmental enquiry against the 1st respondent under Rule 22 of CCA Rules, 1991, and justifying the penalty imposed, on the ground that being a public servant, the 1st respondent found fault with the action of the Government and sought stringent action against the then Home Secretary Mr. P. Gautham Kumar, who retired from the service, on the ground that the 1st respondent cannot find fault with the action of the Government legally. 4. After hearing both sides, the Administrative Tribunal at Hyderabad allowed the application filed by the 1st respondent and set aside the proceedings issued by the 2nd petitioner in D.O.No.412/2014, C.No.27/MPR/A10/2014, dated 15.05.2014, with a direction to the petitioners to release withheld benefits, if any, to the 1st respondent, within a period of three months, from the date of receipt of copy of the Order. 5. Aggrieved by the Orders passed by the Administrative Tribunal, the petitioners have filed present Writ Petition stating that the Administrative Tribunal ought to have considered that the 1st respondent working as Police Constable, who is in Government service within the purview of A.P.Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1964 questioning the Orders passed by the Government through the 2nd petitioner is violation of Rule 17 of A.P.Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1964. They also stated that the 1st respondent not availed appeal channels in the Department under Rule 33 of A.P.Civil Services (CC & A) Rules, 1991, filed O.A.No.4166/2014, which erroneously entertained by the Tribunal and allowed the same. They pray to quash or set aside the Orders passed by the Administrative Tribunal, dated 13.04.2016 in O.A.No.4166/2014. 6. This Court heard learned Government Pleader for Services-I Mr. G.V.S. Kishore Kumar, and Mr. G. Seena Kumar, learned counsel for the 1st respondent. 7. They pray to quash or set aside the Orders passed by the Administrative Tribunal, dated 13.04.2016 in O.A.No.4166/2014. 6. This Court heard learned Government Pleader for Services-I Mr. G.V.S. Kishore Kumar, and Mr. G. Seena Kumar, learned counsel for the 1st respondent. 7. The learned Government Pleader would submit that the 1st respondent, who is working as Police Constable, being Government employee, who is working in disciplined service, cannot question the action or Orders of the Government, which is violation of Rule 17 of A.P.Civil Services (Conduct) Rules. He would further submit that the Tribunal cannot sit as an appellate authority to set aside the Orders passed by the 2nd petitioner in Departmental enquiry, as the 1st respondent failed to avail remedy of Departmental appeal. He prays to allow the Writ Petition by setting aside the Orders passed by the Administrative Tribunal, dated 13.04.2016 in O.A.No.4166/ 2014. 8. The learned counsel for the 1st respondent would submit that the 1st respondent being a victim of an illegal demand of bribe by his own Department men has got every right to question the action taken by the Government in violation of previous Orders of dismissal which reviewed by the same Officer, which is not amounting to questioning the policy decision or action by the Government, which rightly set aside by the Administrative Tribunal. The learned counsel for the 1st respondent relied on the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Vijay Shankar Pandey, appellant vs. Union of India, respondent in 2014 (10) SCC 589 . He prays to dismiss the Writ Petition. 9. In view of rival submissions, the point that emerges for consideration by this Court is:- "Whether the Orders passed by the Administrative Tribunal, dated 13.04.2016 in O.A.No.4166/2014 are legal and valid?" 10. He prays to dismiss the Writ Petition. 9. In view of rival submissions, the point that emerges for consideration by this Court is:- "Whether the Orders passed by the Administrative Tribunal, dated 13.04.2016 in O.A.No.4166/2014 are legal and valid?" 10. POINT: It is not in dispute that the 1st respondent is working as Police Constable in Gajuwaka Police Station of Visakhapatnam city on the date of filing of O.A.No.4166 of 2014 before the Administrative Tribunal and a criminal case has been registered against the 1st respondent and others in Crime No.92 of 2004 for the offences punishable under Sections 353, 323 of IPC and Section 3(i)x) of SC & ST (POA) Act, 1989, wherein he got anticipatory bail with a condition to surrender before the Station House Officer and execute bond for Rs.10,000/- with two sureties each and then he approached the Railway Police Station, Nidadavole, where the Station House Officer demanded bribe, which the 1st respondent reported to News Channel, who conducted sting operation, and consequence of that all the Police personnel involved in the said episode were placed under suspension, and later on after due departmental enquiry they were all removed from the service, including Mr. A. Satyanarayana, the then Inspector of Police, Railway Police Station, Rajahmundry. Then, Mr. A. Satyanarayana filed review petition, wherein the same Officer who was working as Home Secretary reviewed his own Order by reducing the penalty of dismissal of Mr. A. Satyanarayana to that of PPI for three years. Then, the 1st respondent made representation to the Government through proper channel, requesting cancellation of modified penalty Orders ventilating his grievance. As the 1st respondent made representation in personal capacity seeking action against the then Home Secretary Mr. P. Gautham Kumar, the Principal Secretary to the Government of Andhra Pradesh issued Order, dated 21.12.2013 that the 1st respondent has no locus-standi to submit the representation for cancellation of the Orders of review issued by the Government and directed the Director General of Police to take stringent action immediately against the 1st respondent. P. Gautham Kumar, the Principal Secretary to the Government of Andhra Pradesh issued Order, dated 21.12.2013 that the 1st respondent has no locus-standi to submit the representation for cancellation of the Orders of review issued by the Government and directed the Director General of Police to take stringent action immediately against the 1st respondent. Then, the Director General of Police issued Memorandum, dated 08.01.2014 directing the Commissioner of Police, Visakhapatnam city to take stringent action against the 1st respondent immediately, as directed by the Government, and then the Commissioner of Police issued charge memo, and thereafter the 1st respondent submitted his explanation and then the 2nd petitioner issued proceedings, dated 15.05.2014 that criticizing the decision of the Government in policy matter is violation of Rule 17 of A.P.Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1991 and imposed minor penalty of withholding PPI for three years without effect of future increments and pension. 11. A perusal of proceedings, dated 15.05.2014, which is impugned before the Administrative Tribunal, itself shows that no enquiry has been conducted by the 2nd petitioner who acted as per the directions of the Director General of Police, who in turn directed the 2nd petitioner to take stringent action, as per the Orders of the Principal Secretary to the Government, which rightly pointed out by the learned Administrative Tribunal. It would be beneficial to extract Rule 17 of A.P.Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1964, which reads as under : “No Government employee shall, by any public utterance, written or otherwise, criticize any policy or action of Government or any other State Government or the Central Government, nor shall be participated in any such criticism”. 12. The learned Administrative Tribunal observed that the 1st respondent as a citizen of this Country got right to request the authorities to re-look on the modified Orders passed in respect of Mr.A.Satyanarayana, the then Inspector of Police, being a victim and came to conclusion that submitting the representation to the Government is not amounting to violation of Rule 17 of A.P.Civil Services (Conduct) Rules. In similar situation, the Hon’ble Apex Court in Vijay Shankar Pandey case referred supra, relied on by the learned counsel for the 1st respondent after discussing Rule 7, which is similar to the Rule 17 of A.P.Civil Services (Conduct) Rules held at paras 36, 37, 40 and 41, which reads as under : “36. In similar situation, the Hon’ble Apex Court in Vijay Shankar Pandey case referred supra, relied on by the learned counsel for the 1st respondent after discussing Rule 7, which is similar to the Rule 17 of A.P.Civil Services (Conduct) Rules held at paras 36, 37, 40 and 41, which reads as under : “36. Rule 7 of the Conduct Rules reads as follows: “7. Criticism of Government.—No member of the service shall, in any Radio Broadcast or communication over any public media or in any document published anonymously, pseudonymously or in his own name or in the name of any other person or in any communication to the press or in any public utterance, make any statement of fact or opinion— (i) which has the effect of an adverse criticism of any current or recent policy or action of the Central Government or a State Government; or (ii) which is capable of embarrassing the relations between the Central Government and any State Government; or (iii) which is capable of embarrassing the relations between the Central Government and the Government of any Foreign State: Provided that nothing in this rule shall apply to any statement made or views expressed by a member of the service in his official capacity and in the due performance of the duties assigned to him.” 37. Clearly this Rule only prohibits criticism of the policies of the Government or making of any statement which is likely to embarrass the relations between the Government of India and a Foreign State or the Government of India and the Government of a State. Allegations of maladministration, in our opinion, do not fall within the ambit of any of the abovementioned three categories. The entire burden of song in the Writ Petition (C) No.37 of 2010 is regarding maladministration. 40. We are at a loss to comprehend how the filing of the writ petition containing allegations that the Government of India is lax in discharging its constitutional obligations of establishing the rule of law can be said to amount to either failure to maintain absolute integrity and devotion to duty or of indulging in conduct unbecoming of a member of the service. 41. Even otherwise, the IMPUGNED order, in our opinion is wholly untenable. The purpose behind the proceedings appears calculated to harass the appellant since he dared to point out certain aspects of mal-administration in the Government of India. 41. Even otherwise, the IMPUGNED order, in our opinion is wholly untenable. The purpose behind the proceedings appears calculated to harass the appellant since he dared to point out certain aspects of mal-administration in the Government of India. The action of the respondents is consistent with their conduct clearly recorded in (2011) 8 SCC 16. The whole attempt appears to be to suppress any probe into the question of black money by whatever means fair or foul. The present impugned proceedings are nothing but a part of the strategy to intimidate not only the appellant but also to send a signal to others who might dare in future to expose any mal-administration. The fact remains, that this Court eventually agreed with the substance of the complaint pleaded in Writ Petition No.37 of 2010 and connected matters; and directed an independent inquiry into the issue of black money”. 13. In the present case also, the petitioner, who is victim in the hands of his own Departmental men, submitted representation to the Government of Andhra Pradesh to withdraw the review of the punishment Orders passed against Mr. A. Satyanarayana, the then Inspector of Police and as same Officer who imposed punishment of removal has reviewed the Order, the petitioner sought action against him. As rightly observed by the learned Administrative Tribunal that the petitioner being a citizen of Country, has got right to request the authority to re-look on the modified Orders passed in respect of the person responsible for demanding bribe from him. On perusal of Orders passed in D.O.No.412/2014 by the 2nd petitioner and connected records, which itself shows that those Orders are passed as per the directions of the Director General of Police and Principal Secretary to Government, who is expected to act independently without being influenced by the orders of higher authorities, which rightly observed in its Order by the learned Administrative Tribunal. Now, it would be beneficial to extract observations of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Angad Das, Appellant vs. Union of India and others, Respondents in Civil Appeal Nos.1429-1430 of 2010, Judgment dated 18.02.2010 at para 1, which reads as under:- “People in power and authority should not easily lose equanimity, composure and appreciation for the problems of the lesser mortals. They are always expected to remember that power and authority must be judiciously exercised according to the laws and human compassion. They are always expected to remember that power and authority must be judiciously exercised according to the laws and human compassion. Arrogance and vanity have no place in discharge of their official functions and duties”. 14. In view of discussion in the preceding paragraphs, this Court finds that there is no illegality or irregularity in the Orders passed by the learned Administrative Tribunal, dated 13.04.2016 in O.A.No.4166/2014, which set aside the impugned proceedings in D.O.No.412/2014, C.No.27/MPR/ A10/2014, dated 15.05.2014 by the 2nd petitioner/2nd respondent. 15. In the result, Writ Petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions if any, shall stand closed. Interim Orders if any, granted shall stand vacated. Consequential withheld benefits to the 1st respondent shall be released within six weeks.