IN THE HIGH COURT OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

WRIT PETITION No.35372 OF 2013

Between:

P. Dinesh Babu

… Petitioner

And

The Government of India represented

by its Under Secretary, Ministry for

Home Affairs, New Delhi & others

… Respondents

JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED ON: 18.07.2023

THE HON’BLE MRS JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA

1. Whether Reporters of Local newspapers : yes

may be allowed to see the Judgment?

2. Whether the copies of judgment may be

marked to Law Reporters/Journals? : yes

3. Whether Their Lordships wish to

see the fair copy of the Judgment? : yes

___________________

SUREPALLI NANDA, J

WP_35372_2013

SN,J

2

THE HON’BLE MRS JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA

WRIT PETITION No.35372 OF 2013

% 18.07.2023

Between:

# P. Dinesh Babu

..... Petitioner

And

$ The Government of India represented

by its Under Secretary, Ministry for

Home Affairs, New Delhi & others

… Respondents

< Gist:

> Head Note:

! Counsel for the Petitioner : Mr K. Venumadhav

^ Counsel for Respondents : Mr. B. Mayur Reddy, Learned

Senior Designated Counsel.

? Cases Referred:

1. (2006) Law Suit (SC) 412

2. (2022) Live law (SC) 304

WP_35372_2013

SN,J

3

HON’BLE MRS JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA

WRIT PETITION No.35372 OF 2013

ORDER:

Heard the Counsel for the Petitioner and the learned

Senior Designated Counsel Mr . B. Mayur Reddy on behalf

of the Respondents.

2. The petitioner has approached this Court, seeking

the following relief:

“To issue an order or direction, more particularly

one in nature of a Writ of Mandamus or anyother

appropriate writ declaring the orders passed by the

2

nd

respondent dated 09.05.2013 and the order

passed by the 3

rd

respondent in proceedings

No.V-15014/L & R/SS/Rev/PDB/2012, dated

30.11.2012 confirming the order passed by the

respondent no.4 dated 11.6.2012 which is passed

confirming the order passed by the respondent

no.5 in proceeding no.V-15014/GHH/Maj(18/11)

DB-IGM (H)/Ad.IV/111558 dated 31.3.2012

imposing the penalty of “Reduction of pay by one

Increment in Pay Band (PB-1) for a period of 01

(one) year with immediate effect. It is further

directed that during the period of reduction, he will

not earn increments of pay and on expiry of this

period, the reduction will have the effect of

postponing the future increments of his pay” even

WP_35372_2013

SN,J

4

though on the very same charges the petitioner

faced criminal prosecution and the same is ended

in acquittal through judgment in C.C.No. 93 of

2012 on the file of Special Magistrate No.II,

Cyberabad at Malkajgiri, dated 11.12.2012, even

though petitioner has not committed any such

alleged accident and even though the petitioner is

not the driver at the time of the alleged accident,

without assigning any valid reasons, is nothing but

arbitrary, illegal, null and void and violative of

principles of natural justice and also violative of

Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India.

Consequently, direct the respondents to give all

the benefits to the petitioner including release of

the increment.”

3. The case of the Petitioner, in brief, as per writ

affidavit filed, is as follows:

a) The petitioner was appointed as driver in the Central

Industrial Security Force in the year 1997 and since then he has

been working at the utmost satisfaction of the authorities.

b) The respondent No.4 is sued a charge Memo on

28.12.2011, alleging that following charge:

"CISF No.974340063 HC/Driver Dinesh Babu of CISF

Hyderabad was detailed for duty with vehicle bearing

No.AP-29 AD 0940 (Bolero). While bringing the

WP_35372_2013

SN,J

5

Assistant Commandant, CISF Group Headquarters,

Hyderabad (who was looking after the duties of Unit

Commandant, CISF Unit, IG Mint, Hyderabad) from

CISF Group Headquarters, Hyderabad to CISF Unit,

IG Mint, Hyderabad, the said vehicle met with tan

accident at about 15.40 hours on 06

th

July 2011 near

M.R.R. School, Kushaiguda. During the accident, one

civilian motor cycle rider viz., Mohd Nizamuddin, who

was riding the motor cycle bearing No. AP 09 BU

8969 sustained head and knee injuries. While

undergoing treatment, the motor cycle rider

succumbed to injuries on 18

th

July 2011. Such act on

the part of CISF No. 974340063 HC/Driver Dinesh

Babu, P of CISF Unit, IG Mint, Hyderabad, amounts

to careless and lack of alertness in driving the said

official vehicle. Hence the charge."

c) Having acknowledged the said charge memo, the

petitioner submitted a detailed explanation on 6-1-2012 in which

he clearly denied the said charge. The respondent no.6 was

appointed as an Enquiry Officer and after completion of enquiry

even though the charges leveled against the petitioner were not

proved and even though there is no material come on record to

substantiate the charges leveled against him but upon his own

given a finding that the charges leveled against him are proved.

WP_35372_2013

SN,J

6

d) Upon submitting such report by the 6

th

respondent, the 5

th

respondent passed orders dated 31.03.2012 imposing penalty of

“Reduction of pay by one increment in Pay Band (PB-1) for a

period of 01 (one) year with immediately effect. During the

period of reduction, the petitioner will not earn increments of

pay and on expiry of this period, the reduction will have the

effect of postponing the future increments of his pay”.

e) Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner preferred an appeal

before the 4

th

respondent, but the 4

th

respondent without

considering grounds raised by the petitioner and without

assigning any valid reasons simp ly dismissed the appeal by

imposing penalty on him dated 31.03.2012, through order dated

11.06.2012.

f) Aggrieved by the same, he preferred a revision before the

3

rd

respondent, the 3

rd

respondent also without considering the

grounds raised by the petitioner, rejected through order dated

30.11.2012.

g) Further it is the case of the petitioner that in pursuance of

the said accident, which was numbered as Calendar Case No.93

of 2012 was tried by the Hon’ble Special Magistrate No.II,

Cyberabad at Malkajgiri, and after conducted trial and

WP_35372_2013

SN,J

7

considered the oral and documentary evidence, the petitioner

was acquitted by the Judgment dated 11.12.2012.

h) After acquittal of the petitioner in the said case, he has

submitted a representation on 29.01.2013 before the 2

nd

respondent without looking into the Judgment passed by the

Hon’ble Special Magistrate No.II, Cyberabad at Malkajgiri and the

charges levelled against the petitioner in the said criminal case

as well as in the disciplinary proceedings is one and the same

and for the very same charges the competent Judicial Magistrate

was pleased to acquit the petitioner and the 2

nd

respondent not

considering the same and rejected the petitioner’s representation

saying that the department remedies were exhausted by the

petitioner as such no interference is due at this stage, is nothing

but arbitrary, illegal, null and void and violative of principles of

natural justice. Hence, the writ petition.

PERUSED THE RECORD

:

4. Paras 14 and 15 of the final order impugned

dt.31.03.2012 passed by the 5

th

Respondent herein reads

as under :

Para 14: From the facts and evidence of the case as

discussed in the above paragraphs, it is seen the

WP_35372_2013

SN,J

8

charged official while detailed for duty along with

vehicle bearing No. AP-29-AD- 0940 (Bolero) for

bringing P.W-1 from CISF Group HQrs Hyderabad to

CISF Unit, IG Mint, Hyderabad, the vehicle met with

an accident at about 1545 hrs on 06/07/2011 near

MRR School, Kushaiguda in which a civilian namely

Mohd. Nizamuddin who was riding motorcycle No.AP-

09-BU-8969 without wearing helmet, had sustained

head and knee injuries This fact is substantiated

from the statement of P W-1, who was an eye

witness to the incident, and the same is corroborated

by PW-02, P.W-03, P.W-04 and C W-02 as also

admitted by the charged official. Thereafter, the

injured person was shifted to the nearby

Raghavendra Hospital, A.S Rao Nagar. This fact is

evident from the statement of PW-02, P.W-03, &

P.W-04 as well as the charged official. As per the

statement of PW-01 which is corroborated by the

other witnesses viz P.W-02, PW-03, P W-04. C.W-02

as also defence version, the charged official was

driving the vehicle following traffic rules at a speed

of around 30 Kmph. But it was the civilian

motorcyclist coming from the opposite direction and

after touching a car ahead of him, got dis-balanced

and taking a curve had hit the Bolero vehicle

between its doors on rear right side and sustained

injuries to his knees and head as he was not wearing

helmet. Observing the civilian motorcyclist coming

from opposite direction in an un-controlled manner,

WP_35372_2013

SN,J

9

the charged official turned the vehicle to left side of

the road and immediately applied brake. There was

no mechanical fault in the Bolero veh which is

confirmed as per the report dt. 19/07/2011 of MVI,

RTA. Uppal (PW-02/Exhibit-6) The traffic at the time

of accident was not heavy as revealed by the PW-01

inspection of the spot of accident conducted by the

enquiry officer on 18/02/11 behaved that there was

sufficient space on the road for the charged official to

turn bolerojeep to left side of so as to avert collision

with the Motorcyclist. But the official being highly

experienced driver of an Armed Force had failed to

adjudge situation and take timely decision which

resulted in a fatal accident in which the civilian

motorcyclist had succumbed to his injuries on

18/07/2011, while undergoing medical treatment

This fact is evident from the postmortem report dt

18/07/11 issued by Osmania Hospital, Hyderabad

(PW-02/ Ext P7) Moreover, the charged official was

holding copy of driving license only as he had

deposited the original driving license for renewal

Consequent to the incident, FIR No 428/2011

dt.06/07/11 (PW-02/Exht.5) has been lodged in

Kushaiguda P.S by Shri. MohdKhilamuddin, S/o.lqbal

(brother of the deceased) Subsequently, Si of Police,

Kushaiguda has filed a charge sheet vide C.R

No.428/2011 under section-304(A) IPC & 196/177

MV Act (PW-02/Exhibit-8) against the charged official

before the Court of Hon'ble Xth Metropolitan

WP_35372_2013

SN,J

10

Magistrate, Cyberabad, Malkajgiri Thus, on careful

examination of the entire evidence on record and

circumstantial evidence of the case, I find that there

was carelessness and lack of alertness on the part of

the charged official which resulted into a fatal

accident thereby resulting in loss of precious human

life. Had the charged official been more circumspect

& alert in the given situation collision of the civilian

motorcyclist with the Bolero vehicle could have been

very well averted, but he failed to do so. As such, I

agree with the findings of the Enquiry Officer and

accordingly, hold the charged official guilty of the

charge leveled against him. However, keeping in

view of the clean record of service and future career

of the charged official, I intend to take a lenient view

in the case.

Para 15: I, therefore, in exercise of powers

conferred upon me under Rule-32 read in

conjunction with Schedule-l and with Rule-34 (v) of

CISF Rules 2001 hereby award the penalty of

"Reduction of pay by one increment in Pay Band (PB-

1) for a period of 01 (one) year with immediate

effect. It is further directed that during the period of

reduction, he will not earn Increments of pay and on

expiry of this period, the reduction will have the

affect of postponing the future Increments of his

pay" to No 974340083 HC(Dvr) Dinesh Babu P of

WP_35372_2013

SN,J

11

CISF Unit: IG Mint. Hyderabad to meet the end of

justice.

5. Paras 4 and 6 of the counter affidavit filed by the

Respondents reads as under :

Para 4 :

With regard to Para No.6.7 & 8 of the

Writ petition, it is respectfully submitted that the

Petitioner had submitted a representation dt.

29.01.13 addressed to the DG/CISF Hors, New Delhi

quoting Judgement order passed by Special

Magistrate-II, Cyberabad at Malkajgiri in Calender

Case No. 93/12 acquitting him in the criminal case.

He also requested to set aside the penalty awarded

in the instant case. In turn, his representation was

disposed off vide CISF Hqrs, New Delhi Ltr. No. V-

11014/17/1&R/2013/1399, dt, 09.5.2013 informing

the Petitioner that the order dt.11.12.12 passed by

the Hon'ble Special Magistrate No. II. Cyberabad at

Malkajgiri in the case No. 428/2011, 93/2012

discharging him from the charge, is not tenable as

the intent and purpose of departmental enquiry and

criminal case are different and distinct. The charge

against the petitioner was proved in departmental

enquiry and as he had exhausted all the

departmental remedies by way of appeal and

revision petition and therefore cannot be interfered.

The Petitioner acknowledged the said letter on

31.5.13. As such the averment of the petitioner that

rejection of his representation addressed to DG/CISF

WP_35372_2013

SN,J

12

is arbitrary, illegal and violative of principles of

natural justice is not tenable and hence denied.

Para 6 :

In reply to para no 12 of the Writ

petition, it is respectfully submitted that the Enquiry

Officer proved the charge of careless and lack of

alertness in driving the said vehicle by the petitioner

on the basis of material evidences and statement of

witnesses recorded during the Departmental Enquiry.

The Petitioner could not present any new issue/point

to prove his innocence. Gp. Commandant CISFGp.

HQrs Hyderabad after considering the representation

submitted by the petitioner against the Enquiry

report and the evidences held on record in the case

files passed the final order awarding the penalty of

"Reduction of pay by one increment in Pay Band (PB-

1) for a period of 01 (one) year with immediate

effect. It is further directed that during the period of

reduction, he will not earn increments of pay and on

expiry of this period. the reduction will have the

effect of postponing the future increments of his

pay" to the petitioner which commensurate with the

gravity of offence committed by him. Hence, the

averment of the petitioner is denied.”

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION

:

6. A bare perusal of the final order dt. 31.03.2012

passed by the 5

th

Respondent herein (the relevant portion,

WP_35372_2013

SN,J

13

being referred to and extracte d above) clearly indicates

that it is a detailed speaking order passed by the 5

th

Respondent in exercise of the powers conferred by the 5

th

Respondent under Rule 32 read in conjunction with

Schedule I and with Rule 34 (v) of CISF Rules, 2001 and a

penalty of “reduction of pay by one increment in Pay Band

(PB-1) for a period of 01 (one) year with immediate effect

and it was further directed that during the period of

reduction Petitioner will not earn increments of pay and

on expiry of the said period the reduction will have the

effect of postponing the future increments of Petitioner’s

pay.

7. The Petitioner preferred an Appeal against the said

order dt. 31.03.2012 to the 6

th

Respondent herein and the

6

th

Respondent rejected the Appeal petition preferred by

the Petitioner through a detailed Speaking Order vide

Proceedings dt. 11.06.2012. Petitioner also preferred a

Revision Petition aggrieved against the final order

No.(1558) dt. 31.03.2012 passed by the 5

th

Respondent

herein to the 3

rd

Respondent who rejected the same vide

detailed Speaking Order dt. 30.11.2012 holding that the

penalty awarded to the Peti tioner by the Disciplinary

WP_35372_2013

SN,J

14

Authority was upheld by the Appellate Authority since it

was found commensurate with the gravity of charge and

the Revision Petition was rejected being devoid of merit.

The Petitioner thereafter submitted a representation dt.

29.01.2013 to the 6

th

Respondent herein seeking to set

aside the punishment on the ground that the Hon’ble

Special Magistrate No.II, Cybe rabad at Malkajgiri in the

Case No.428/2011 on 09.03.2012 discharged the

Petitioner from the charges and the said request was

rejected by the 6

th

Respondent vide impugned

proceedings dt. 09.05.2013 clearly observing that the

charges against the Petitioner had been proved in the

Departmental Enquiry and th e Petitioner had already

exhausted all the Departmental remedies by way of

Appeal and Revision Petition and therefore the same does

not warrants interference at this stage.

8. Aggrieved by the said final order dt. 31.03.2012

passed by the 5

th

Respondent as confirmed by the

Appellate Authority that is the 6

th

Respondent vide its

order dt. 11.06.2012 and the proceedings dt. 30.11.2012

passed by the 3

rd

Respondent rejecting the Revision

Petition filed by the Petitioner aggrieved against the final

WP_35372_2013

SN,J

15

order dt. 31.03.2012 awarded by the 5

th

Respondent and

the proceedings dt. 09.05.2013 of the 6

th

Respondent

rejecting the Petitioner’s representation dt. 29.03.2013

seeking to set aside the punishment, in view of the fact

that the Petitioner had been discharged from the charges

in Case No.93/2012 on 11.12.2012 by the Special

Magistrate No.II, Cyberabad at Malkajgiri, the present

writ petition has been filed by the Petitioner.

9. It is true that it is settled law as per the Judgement

of the Apex Court reported in (2022) Livelaw (SC) 304, dt.

22.03.2022 in State of Karnataka and Another Vs. Umesh

in Civil Appeal Nos.1763 – 1764 of 2022, that in the

exercise of the judicial review, the Court does not act as

an Appellate Forum over the findings of the Disciplinary

Authority. The Court does not re-appreciate the evidence

on the basis of which the find ing of misconduct has been

arrived at in the course of a disciplinary enquiry. The

Court in the exercise of judi cial review must restrict its

review to determine whether :

i. The rules of natural justice have been complied

with.

WP_35372_2013

SN,J

16

ii. The finding of misconduct is based on some

evidence.

iii. The statutory rules governing the conduct of

disciplinary enquiry have been observed.

iv. Whether the findings of the disciplinary

authority suffer from perversity and the penalty is

disproportionate to the proven misconduct.

10. In the present case it is borne on record that the

departmental proceedings and criminal case are based on

identical and similar set of facts without there being any

iota of difference and the charge in the departmental case

against the Petitioner and the charge before the Criminal

Court are one and the same,the eye witness/prosecution

witness, in the criminal case PW-3 Pankaj Kumar, Asst.

Commandant, CISF, GP, HQRs., Hyderabad, is also the

prosecution witness before the Disciplinary Authority

(PW-01) and the Court of Special Magistrate No.II,

Cyberabad at Malkajgiri in Calander Case No.93/2012 in

its order dt. 11.12.2012at para 13 specifically

observedthat there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever

to show that the accused/petitioner drove the crime

vehicle at the time of the accident, as the result of which

the deceased received injuries and died subsequently and

WP_35372_2013

SN,J

17

further acquitted the Petitioner holding that the Petitioner

is found not guilty of the offence punishable U/s.304-A of

the Indian Penal Code and U/s.196/177 of Motor Vehicles

Act in Cr.No.428/2011, whereas the charge framed

against the Petitioner by the Disciplinary Authority

referring to the very same accident attributed careless

and lack of alertness in driving the said official vehicle to

the Petitioner herein, this Court opines that the

Respondents have to reconsid er the orders impugned in

the present Writ Petition.

11. The Apex Court in the Judgement in G.M. Tank vs.

State of Gujarat, in its decision dt. 10.05.2006, at paras

31, 32 and 33 observed as under :

Para 31.

The judgments relied on by the learned

Counsel appearing for the respondents are

distinguishable on facts and on law. In this case, the

departmental proceedings and the criminal case are

based on identical and similar set of facts and the

charge in a departmental case against the appellant

and the charge before the Criminal Court are one

and the same. It is true that the nature of charge in

the departmental proceedings and in the criminal

case is grave. The nature of the case launched

against the appellant on the basis of evidence and

WP_35372_2013

SN,J

18

material collected against him during enquiry and

investigation and as reflected in the charge-sheet,

factors mentioned are one and the same. In other

words, charges, evidence, witnesses and

circumstances are one and the same. In the present

case, criminal and departmental proceedings have

already noticed or granted on the same set of facts

namely, raid conducted at the appellant's residence,

recovery of articles therefrom. The Investigating

Officer, Mr. V. B. Raval and other departmental

witnesses were the only witnesses examined by the

Enquiry Officer who by relying upon their statement

came to the conclusion that the charges were

established against the appellant. The same

witnesses were examined in the criminal case and

the criminal Court on the examination came to the

conclusion that the prosecution has not proved the

guilt alleged against the appellant beyond any

reasonable doubt and acquitted the appellant by his

judicial pronouncement with the finding that the

charge has not been proved. It is also to be noticed

the judicial pronouncement was made after a regular

trial and on hot contest. Under these circumstances,

it would be unjust and unfair and rather oppressive

to allow the finding recorded in the departmental

proceedings to stand.

Para 32.

In our opinion, such facts and evidence in

the department as well as criminal proceedings were

the same without there being any iota of difference,

WP_35372_2013

SN,J

19

the appellant should succeed. The distinction which

is usually proved between the departmental and

criminal proceedings on the basis of the approach

and burden of proof would not be applicable in the

instant case. Though finding recorded in the

domestic enquiry was found to be valid by the Courts

below, when there was an honourable acquittal of

the employee during the pendency of the

proceedings challenging the dismissal, the same

requires to be taken note of and the decision in Paul

Anthony's case, (1999 (3) SCC 679) will apply. We,

therefore, hold that the appeal filed by the appellant

deserves to be allowed.

Para 33.

In the instant case, the appellant joined

the respondent in the year 1953. He was suspended

from service on 8-2-1979 and got subsistence

allowance of Rs. 700/- p.m. i.e. 50% of the salary.

On 15-10-1982 dismissal order was passed. The

appellant has put in 26 years of service with the

respondent i.e. from 1953-1979. The appellant

would now superannuate in February, 1986. On the

basis of the same charges and the evidence, the

department passed an order of dismissal on 21-10-

1982 whereas the Criminal Court acquitted him on

30-1-2002. However, as the Criminal Court acquitted

the appellant on 30-1-2002 and until such acquittal,

there was no reason or ground to hold the dismissal

to be erroneous, any relief monetarily can be only

w.e.f. 30-1-2002. But by then, the appellant had

WP_35372_2013

SN,J

20

retired, therefore, we deem it proper to set aside the

order of dismissal without back wages. The appellant

would be entitled to pension.”

12. Taking into consideration of the above referred facts

and circumstances and the view taken by the Apex Court

at paras 31, 32 and 33 of the Judgement dated

10.05.2006 reported in (2006) Law Suit (SC) 412, in

G.M.Tank v State of Gujarat the Writ Petition is disposed

of directing the Respondents to reconsider the final order

dt. 31.03.2012 passed by the 5

th

Respondent herein and

also the other consequential orders dated 11.06.2012

passed by the 6

th

Respondent and the order dated

30.11.2012 passed by the 3

rd

Respondent and the order

dated 09.05.2013 passed by the 6

th

Respondent duly

taking into consideration Pa ra 13 of the order dated

11.12.2012 passed in Calender Case No.93/2012 by the

Court of Special Magistrate No .II, Cyberabad at Malkajgiri,

and also the law laid down by the Apex Court in

Judgements referred to and extracted above and re-

examine the whole issue whether the finding of

misconduct alleged against the Petitioner and proved

against the Petitioner by the Disciplinary Authority is

WP_35372_2013

SN,J

21

based on some evidence as observed by the Apex Court at

para 17 in its recent judgment dt.22.03.2022, reported in

(2022) Livelaw (SC) 304, in State of Karnataka and

Another Vs. Umesh in Civil Appeal Nos.1763 – 1764 of

2022 and pass appropriate orders within a period of (6)

weeks from the date of receip t of the copy of the order

duly communicating their decision to the Petitioner.

13. With these observations this Writ Petition is

disposed of. However, there shall be no order as to costs.

___________________________________

MRS. JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA

Date:

18.07.2023

Note : L.R.copy to be marked.

B/o.KVRM/YVKR