RRR,J & TCDS,J

WP_40324_2017

1

APHC010777992017

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA

PRADESH

AT AMARAVATI

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

[3529]

WEDNESDAY, THE SIXTH DAY OF MAY

TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX

PRESENT

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D.SEKHAR

WRIT PETITION No. 40324/2017

Between:

1. K. TYAGA RAJU,, S/O SATYAM,AGED ABOUT 50

YEARS, OCC:JR. ASSISTANT (UNDER

SUSPENSION),AT PRINCIPAL JR. CIVIL JUDGE

COURT, PALAKOL, WEST GODAVARI DIST., ANDHRA

PRADESH.

...PETITIONER

AND

1. THE PRINCIPAL DISTRICT JUDGE, West Godavari,

Eluru,Andhra Pradesh (Disciplinary Authority

...RESPONDENT

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India

praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed

therewith, the High Court may be pleased to

IA NO: 1 OF 2017(WPMP 50047 OF 2017

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the

circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the

petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the

RRR,J & TCDS,J

WP_40324_2017

2

impugned proceedings vide D.E.No: 01/2016 dt: 10.08.2017

issued by the respondent against the petitioner till the disposal

of the writ petition,direct the respondent to pay the subsisting

allowances to the petitioner and pass

IA NO: 2 OF 2017(WPMP 50049 OF 2017

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the

circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the

petition, the High Court may be pleased to dispense with

presence of the certified copy of the Enquiry Report dt. 12-08-

2016 in Dis.No.338 of Enquiry officer cum II Addl. Jr. Civil

Judge, Tadepalligudem and to pass

IA NO: 5 OF 2017(WPMP 226965 OF 2017

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the

circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the

petition, the High Court may be pleased

IA NO: 1 OF 2024

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the

circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the

petition, the High Court may be pleased pleased to grant

leave and permit the Respondent to file counter affidavit in

W.P.No.40324 of 2017 and pass

Counsel for the Petitioner:

1. K J V N PUNDAREEKAKSHUDU

Counsel for the Respondent:

1. P S P SURESH KUMAR

The Court made the following:

RRR,J & TCDS,J

WP_40324_2017

3

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAO RAGHUNANDAN RAO

AND

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D. SEKHAR

WP No.40324 OF 2017

COMMON ORDER:- (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice T.C.D. Sekhar)

1. The present writ petition is filed questioning the

proceedings in DE No.01/2016, dt.10.08.2017 issued by the

respondent, whereunder the petitioner was imposed with

penalty of dismissal from service as per Rule 9 of AP Civil

Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1991.

2. The petitioner while working as Junior Assistant in

Principal Junior Civil Judge, Palakol was placed under

suspension by order dt.15.10.2015 issued by the respondent

herein. He was placed under suspension on the allegation that

he had been remanded to Judicial custody for more than 48

hours in Crime No.138/2015, on the file of Nidadavole Police

Station for the offence punishable under Section 354 (A)(D)

IPC.

3. Further, the respondent ordered to conduct

regular departmental enquiry against the petitioner and the II

RRR,J & TCDS,J

WP_40324_2017

4

Additional Junior Civil Judge, Tadepalligudem was appointed

as Enquiry Officer by proceedings dt.17.06.2016. The Enquiry

Officer served the Article of charge to the petitioner and the

same is reproduced hereunder:

Article:- “That you (Sri K.Tyaga Raju) while working as

Junior Assistant, Principal Junior Civil Judge’s Court, Palakol

on 28.08.2015 said to have approached a women by name

Eluru Sunitha, W/o. Kiran Kumar in the presence of her aunt,

caught hold her hand, misbehaved against her requiring her

to satisfy your desire whereupon a complaint was lodged

and a case in Crime No.138 of 2015 on the file of

Nidadavole Police Station was registered and you were

arrested and sent to remand on 09.10.2015 and you have

been in Judicial custody for morethan 48 hours as per the

information given by the Principal junior Civil Judge, Palakol,

that your conduct and misbehavior against women within

Nidadavole Court premises amounts to gross misconduct

and also amounts to moral turpitude which is unbecoming of

a Government Servant if proved; that your detention in

prison for more than 48 hours with such an allegation is also

a serious matter and that conduct of you is spoiling the

dignity and discipline of the institution and hence actionable

under Rule 3 of Conduct Rules, punishable under APCS

(CCA) Rules, 1991.”

4. After service of Article of charge, the petitioner

denied the same and pleaded innocence. During the course of

inquiry, the Enquiry Officer examined PWs.1 to 7 and marked

Exs.P1 to P19. After completing the enquiry a report

dt.12.08.2016 was submitted to the respondent for taking up

further action against the petitioner herein as the charge

RRR,J & TCDS,J

WP_40324_2017

5

leveled against him was proved in the enquiry. Thereafter, the

Enquiry Report was furnished to the petitioner asking him to

submit written explanation. Accordingly, the petitioner

submitted representation dt.03.09.2016 with a request to

reinstate him into service. Thereafter, the respondent issued

order dt.25.11.2016, to show cause as to why the punishment

of compulsory retirement from service should not be imposed.

The petitioner submitted written explanation dt.07.12.2016 to

the respondent, requesting to exonerate him from the charge

leveled against him. Subsequently, the impugned order came

to be passed against the petitioner and he was imposed with

the penalty of dismissal from service as the acts committed by

the petitioner amounts to moral turpitude.

5. The respondent filed counter affidavit denying the

averments made in the affidavit filed in support of the writ

petition and supported the order under challenge stating that

the same was passed after following the procedure

contemplated under law. It was further stated that, the acts

committed by the petitioner would fall under Rule 9 of Andhra

Pradesh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal)

RRR,J & TCDS,J

WP_40324_2017

6

Rules, 1991 as amended from time to time and therefore he

was dismissed from service.

6. Heard counsel for the petitioner and Sri PSP

Suresh Kumar, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the

respondent.

7. Perused the record.

8. As per the Article of charge, it was alleged that

the petitioner approached a women by name Eluru Sunitha on

28.08.2015 in the presence of her aunt, caught hold her hand,

misbehaved with her asking to satisfy his desire. Upon which

a crime has been registered against the petitioner and he was

arrested on 09.10.2015. On the same day, he was sent to

judicial custody by order of remand and later he was released

on bail on 12.10.2015. As he was in judicial custody for more

than 48 hours, he was placed under suspension and served

with the above charge asking him to offer explanation. The

petitioner submitted explanation denying the charge. The

Enquiry Officer conducted enquiry and based on the evidence

recorded through the witnesses examined by him, he came to

RRR,J & TCDS,J

WP_40324_2017

7

the conclusion that charge framed against the petitioner was

proved.

9. A perusal of the Enquiry Report, especially the

evidence of PW-4, Eluru Sunitha, on whose complaint, crime

was registered against the petitioner would show that she filed

maintenance case against her husband, apart from registering

a case of dowry harassment and the same were pending

adjudication on the file of Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Nidadavole. She further deposed that while attending the

Court proceedings in the above cases, the petitioner

introduced himself and assured her that he will see that

maintenance is granted to her. In the said process, the

petitioner got acquainted with PW-4 and made a proposal to

her to live with him, as her husband already neglected her.

She further deposed that the petitioner used to talk with her to

satisfy his desires. The same was informed to her sister

A. Nagamani. On 28.08.2015, PW-4 along with her sister and

junior paternal aunt went to Nidadavole Court to attend

adjournment, on the said day, at about 06:00 PM, when PW-4

went to get Photostat copies from a Xerox centre situated

beside the Court, when she reached near Lavanya photo

RRR,J & TCDS,J

WP_40324_2017

8

studio, the petitioner asked her to come with him as he

intends to look after her and in the said process the petitioner

caught hold her hand, then she took back her hand and

questioned the acts of petitioner and raised cries. Upon which,

the sister of PW-4 and paternal aunt, who were at tea stall

saw the said act of the petitioner and thereupon the petitioner

left from the said premises.

10. PW-4, further deposed that by the acts of the

petitioner, she suffered mental agony and after many

deliberations with her family members gave complaint against

the petitioner on 08.10.2015. She further deposed that the

complaint could not be given immediately as her family

reputation was involved in the matter and if the complaint is

given, her husband may not accept her to join the matrimonial

home. The other witnesses i.e., the sisters of the complainant

deposed in similar lines.

11. On perusal of the evidence of the complainant

(PW-4) and her sisters (PWs.5 & 6), there are many

contradictions. A perusal of the evidence of PWs.5 & 6 would

go to show that they never witnessed the alleged incident that

RRR,J & TCDS,J

WP_40324_2017

9

happened on 28.08.2015 nor they have seen the petitioner.

Further, there is no plausible explanation offered as to why the

complaint was not given against the petitioner till 08.10.2015,

when the incident took place on 28.08.2015.

12. Though, it was stated that in view of the

reputation of the family of the complainant, the same cannot

be accepted. Further, the complainant did not examine any

independent witness so as to establish the alleged acts

committed by the petitioner. It is also not in dispute that, the

alleged incident happened in a busy locality and it is obvious

that many persons could have witnessed the alleged incident.

For the reasons best known to the complainant (PW-4) no

steps have been taken to examine any independent witness.

The witnesses examined by the complainant (PW-4) were

none other than her sisters and therefore their evidence

cannot be considered. Despite pleading the same before the

Enquiry Officer by the petitioner, it was brushed aside stating

that mere non examination of independent witnesses cannot

be sole basis to disbelieve the allegations leveled against the

petitioner. The Enquiry Officer further observed that the

evidence of the witness was free from blemish or suspicion

RRR,J & TCDS,J

WP_40324_2017

10

and the same inspired the confidence of the Enquiry Officer

and therefore it was held that the charge was proved against

the petitioner. Further, nothing is forthcoming from the

complainant as to what action she had taken, if the petitioner

was repeatedly approaching her to satisfy his desires.

Though, it was deposed by the complaint that the same was

informed to her sister A. Nagamani, admittedly no action was

taken till the alleged incident took place on 28.08.2015.

13. Be that as it may, the crime registered against the

petitioner was investigated into and charge sheet was filed in

CC No.2 of 2016, on the file of Judicial Magistrate of First

Class, Nidadavole. Upon trial, the petitioner was found guilty

for the offences under Section 354 (A) (ii) and 354 (B) (i) IPC

and he was sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a

period of three (03) years. Aggrieved by the said judgment,

the petitioner preferred appeal vide CRLA No.276 of 2017, on

the file of IX Additional Sessions Judge, West Godavari

District at Kovvur. After hearing the parties, the learned

Sessions Judge vide Judgment dated 12.02.2018 allowed the

appeal by setting aside the convictions and sentences

imposed by the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Nidadavole.

RRR,J & TCDS,J

WP_40324_2017

11

Further, a perusal of list of witnesses examined by the Enquiry

Officer and the witnesses in criminal case are almost the

same witnesses. Further, upon perusal of the charge leveled

against the petitioner in the departmental enquiry and the

criminal case is identical and the evidence and the witnesses

are almost one and the same. Once the petitioner was

acquitted in criminal proceedings after full consideration of the

evidence of prosecution, it is always open to the Court to

exercise its discretion by taking into consideration of the facts

and circumstances of each case.

14. In the case on hand, as already stated supra, the

complainant (PW-4) failed to examine independent witnesses

and apart from the same, there is no explanation forthcoming

for the delay caused in giving complaint against the petitioner.

Further, the charge leveled against the petitioner is one and

the same in departmental enquiry and in the criminal case. In

such circumstances, if the Court has come to the conclusion

that the disciplinary proceedings initiated against the petitioner

which culminated in dismissal of service is bad and

unsustainable, the same can be declared as null and void,

inasmuch as the punishment of dismissal from service was

RRR,J & TCDS,J

WP_40324_2017

12

too harsh in the given facts and circumstances of the case.

Further, this view of the Court is fortified by the Judgment of

Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of “Ram Lal Vs. State of

Rajasthan & others”

1

.

15. A perusal of the record would go to show that,

departmental proceedings were initiated against the petitioner

as he was in judicial custody for more than 48 hours. In this

context, it is pertinent to note that the offences alleged against

the petitioner was under Section 354 (A) (D) IPC. Admittedly,

the said offence is bailable. Despite the same, the petitioner

was arrested without serving notice under Section 41-A Cr.PC

Further, he was produced before the learned Magistrate, who

in turn remanded him. Though, bail application was ordered

on the same day i.e., 09.10.2015, the 2

nd

surety furnished by

the petitioner was returned on one ground or the other despite

requesting to accept the 2

nd

security on payment of cash. The

series of events happened in the instant case would go to

show that there is something more than what it appears in the

matter. Further, the petitioner was remanded as a matter of

routine without looking into the offences alleged to have been

1

Civil Appeal No.7935 of 2023

RRR,J & TCDS,J

WP_40324_2017

13

committed by him as well as the procedure that was to be

followed in the said circumstances. It is noteworthy that

despite the judgments rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court

and this Court, time and again directing the Magistrates to

follow the procedure contemplated under Section 41-A

Cr.P.C., without adhering to the same, the accused were sent

to remand without recording any reasons. Further, in the case

on hand as already observed the surety furnished by the

petitioner was rejected on flimsy ground, without taking into

consideration of the fact that the petitioner was an employee

working in the Court.

16. For the reasons recorded supra, this Court feels

that the imposition of major penalty of dismissal from service

against the petitioner is punitive, harsh and the same is

unwarranted. As already observed supra, the charge and the

witnesses examined in both departmental enquiry and as well

as in the criminal case are more or less one and the same,

and in view of the fact that the petitioner was acquitted in the

criminal case by judgment dated 12.02.2018 in Criminal

Appeal No.276 of 2017, on the file of IX Additional Sessions

Judge, West Godavari at Kovvur, the impugned proceedings

RRR,J & TCDS,J

WP_40324_2017

14

in DE No.1 of 2016, dt.10.08.2017 issued by the respondent

and Departmental Enquiry Report No.1 of 2016, dated

12.08.2016 are hereby set aside and the respondent shall

reinstate the petitioner into service with immediate effect, with

all consequential service benefits and continuity in service. In

so far as, back wages are concerned, the respondent is

directed to take appropriate decision in accordance with law,

after affording opportunity of being heard to the petitioner as

to whether he was gainfully employed or not during the period

of suspension.

17. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. There

shall be no order as to costs.

As a sequel, pending applications, if any shall stand

closed.

_______________________________

JUSTICE RAO RAGHUNANDAN RAO

______________________

JUSTICE T.C.D. SEKHAR

06.05.2026

DR

RRR,J & TCDS,J

WP_40324_2017

15

06

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO

AND

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D. SEKHAR

WP No.40324 OF 2017

Dt.06.05.2026

U

DR