As per case facts, the petitioner, a retired Inspector of Police, was implicated in a criminal case following the accidental discharge of his service revolver, which resulted in a fatality. ...
t32521
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
AT HYDERABAD
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
TUESDAY, THE TWENTIETH DAY OF JANUARY
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MRS JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA
WRIT PETITION NO: 13970 OF 2023
Between:
Shaik Sarwar Pasha, S/o Shaik Mohiddin, Aged
lnspector Police, Rl/o H.No.3-10-202, Reddy
Hanumakonda District, Telangana State.
about 76 years, Retired
Colony, Hanumakonda,
...PETITIONER
AND
1. The State of Telangana, Home Department, Secretariat Buildings,
Hyderabad, Rep. by its Principal Secretary.
2. The Director General of Police, Telangana State, Lakadi-ka-Pool, Hyderabad.
3. The Deputy lnspector General of Police, Karimnagar Range, Karimnagar,
HAC of Warangal Range, Warangal, Telangana.
4. The Accountant General, State of Telangana, Saifabad, Khairatabad,
Hyderabad - 500004.
...RESPONDENTS
Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the
circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased
to issue a Writ or Order or Direction more pa(icularly one in the nature of a Writ of
MANDAMUS, declaring the action of the
'l st Respondent herein in issuing
GOMs.No.12, Home (Services-l) Department, dated 25.01 .2012, thereby imposing
the penalty of withholding of 50
o/o
pension of the Petitioner for a period of 5 (five)
years under Rule 9 of Andhra Pradesh Revised Pension Rules, 1980 read with Rule
20 of Andhra Pradesh Civil Services (CC&A) Rules, 1991 and the consequential
proceedings issued by the 3rd Respondent herein in C.No.01/PR/2012,
R.O.No.82l20'12, dated 15.02.2012, besides recovery proceedings vide Memo
No.'1498/L&O-1 lQl2003-2, dated 21.06.2004, issued by the 2nd Respondent herein,
though the Petitioner was acquitted in Criminal Appeal t'l
08.10.2010, on the file of the Principal Sessions Judge,
No.1 7512001 , registered under Section 304-A of lPC, on the f
Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Khammam, set aside ti
arbitrary, irrational and violative of Article 14, 19 and 21 ol Cot
Consequently direct the Respondents herein to release the 5C
withheld for a period of 5 (five) years pursuant to GOMs.No.1
Department, dated 25.01.2012 and the consequential proceeci
Respondent herein in C.No.01/PR/2012, R.O.No.8212012, <lt
release an amount of Rs.3,00,000/- which was recovered fr:
declare that the Petitioner is entitled to be promoted as Deg r
Police on notional basis on the date on which he was eligible i
in service with all consequential benefits, forthwith.
l.A. NO: 1OF 2023
Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circurr
affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be
Respondents herein to release the 50% pension which was wi,t
(five) years pursuant to GOMs.No.12, Home (Services-l)
25.01 .2012 and the consequential proceedings issued by the I ir
in C.No.01/PR:/20'12, R.O. No.8212012, dated 15.02.2012 and
Rs.3,00,000/- which was recovered from the Petitioner, pe r
above Writ Petition.
.93 of 2O09, dated
(hammam in Crime
er of the ll Additional
o same, as illegal,
s;titution of India and
( pension which was
2, Home (Services-l)
r1;s issued by the 3rd
ted 15.02.2012 and
rr the Petitioner and
t/ Superintendent of
r the said post when
;lances stated in the
p leased to direct the
l'eld for a period of 5
Department, dated
J Respondent herein
: lease an amount of
I rng disposal of the
l.A. NO: 1OF 2025
Petition under Order 6 Rule 7 under Section 1 51 CP( ) ltraying that in the
circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the p,; ition, the High Court
may be pleased be pleased to issue a Writ or Order or Dire,; on more particularly
one in the nature of Writ of MANDAMUS, declaring the action r ,f the 1st respondent
herein in issuing impugned punishment order vide G.O. Ms. N( . 12, Home (Services-
l) Department, dated 25.01.2012, on the same set of allegatior; in Cr.No. 17512001
registered U/s 304-4 of lPC, imposing the penalty of withhold r g of 50% pension of
the petitioner for a period of 5 (five) years under Rule 9 of An,i rra Pradesh Revised
Pension Rules, 1980 read with Rule 20 of Andhra Pradesh Civil Services (CC&A)
Rules, 1991 and the consequential proceedings issued by the 3rd respondent herein
in C.No. 011PN2O12, R.O. No. 8212012 dated 15.02.2012 and recovery proceedings
vide Memo No. 1498/L&O-11A212003-2 dated 21.06.2004, whereby an amount of Rs.
3,00,000/- was recovered from the pensionary benefits of the petitioner, though the
petitioner was acquitted in criminal appeal No. 93 of 2009 dated 08.'10.2010 on the
file of the Principal Sessions Judge, Khammam and not treating the period of
suspension as on duty and also not considering the petitioner for promotion to the
post of Deputy Superintendent of Police as per his date of eligibility, as being illegal,
arbitrary, irrational and violative of Article 14, 19,21 and 300-4 of the Constitution of
lndia and contrary to various judgments of Hon'ble Supreme court of lndia and
consequently setaside the punishment and recovery proceedings and consequently
direct the respondents to treat the period of suspension from 07-07.2001 to
30.11.2004 as on duty and further to consider the petitioner for promotion to the post
of Deputy Superintendent of Police from the date of his eligibility, to refix his pension
and other pensionary benefits and release full pension with interest in view of
acquittal in Criminal Case in Crl. Appeal No. 93/2009, dt: 8.10.2010 on the file of the
Prl. Session Judge, Khammam with all consequential benefits.
Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI NAYAKAWADI RAMESH
Counsel for the Respondent No.1 to 3: AGP FOR SERVICES-I
Counsel for the Respondent No.4: SRI K.BALAKRISHNA' SC FOR AG
The Court made the following: ORDER
THE HTGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANI IANA AT
HYDERABAD
THE HON,BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUREPALLI T ANDA
WRITPETITIONo.13970 0F 2023
DATE: 20.OL.2026
BETWEEN:
Shaik Sarwar Pasha
Petitioner
And
The State of Telangana,
Home Department, Hyderabad,
And (3) others
Rr: ;pondents
ORDER
Heard Sri Nayakawadi Ramesh, learnt d counsel
appearing on behalf of the petitioner, th e' learned
Assistant Government Pleader for $ervices-I
appearing on behalf of the Respondent Nos,. I to 3 and
Sri K. Balakrishna, learned standin,l counsel
appearing on behalf of the Respondent No.'l
2. The petitioner ap
Draver as under:
Droached te Corrttseeki nq
2
SN.J
wP.t{o.13970 0f 2023
"...to
particularly
a Writ. Order
the nature of
or Direction more
Writ of Mandamus,
declaring the action of the 1.t Respondent herein in issuing
G.O.Ms.No.12. Home (Services-I) Department, dated
25.OL.2012, thereby imposing the penalty of withholding of
5070 pension of the petitioner for a period of 5 (five) years
under Rule 9 of Andhra pradesh
Revised pension
Rules,
1980 read with Rule 20 of Andhra pradesh
Civil Services
(CC&A) Rules, 1991 and the consequential proceedings
issued by the 3d respondent herein in C. No.01/pp/2012,
R.O.No.82/2012 dated tS.O2.ZOL2, besides recovery
proceedings vide Memo No.1498/L&O-1/A2/ZOO3-2, dated
21.06.2004, issued by the 2nd Respondent herein, though
the Petitioner was acquitted in Criminal Appeal No.93 of
2009, dated 08.10.2010, on the file ofthe principal
Sesslons
Judge, Khammam in Crime No.17512001, registered under
Section 304-A of IpC, on the file of the II Additional Judicial
Magistrate of First Class, Khammam. set aside the same, as
illegal, arbltrary, irrational and violative of Article 14, 19 and
21 of Constitution of India and Consequently direct the
Respondents herein to release the 50yo pension which was
withheld for a period of 5 (five) years pursuant to
G.O.Ms.No.12, Home (Services-I) Department, dated
25.OL.20L2 and the consequential proceedings issued by
the 3rd Respondent herein in C. No.01/pR/2012,
R.O.No.82l2012, dated L5.02.2Ot2 and release an amount
of Rs.3,00,000/- which was recovered from the petitioner
and declare that the petitioner is entitled to be promoted as
Deputy Superintendent of police on notional basis on the
date on which he was eligible for the said post when in
tssue
one in
.*\
3
service with all consequential benefits, forthw t
such other order..."
3. The case of the petitioner, in brief,
petitioner, while serving as Inspector of Polic
-.
Town Circle, was implicated in Crime No.175 cf
Section 304-A IPC after petitioner's sen i
accidentally discharged during a scuffle, caus i
Later, the petitioner was acquitted on merits b)
Sessions Judge, Khammam, in Criminal App:
2009 dated 08.10.2010, holding that the ir
purely accidental.
On an earlier occasion, the petitioner had
r
No.14356 of 2015 before the A.P. Administra:i
which was not renumbered by this Cou 1
bifurcation of the State of Andhra pradesh.
acquittal, the disciplinary proceedings continue(
petitioner's retirement on 30.11.2004. A show
,
dated 01.08.2011 was issued proposing to wittt
petitioner's pension for five years, and by (;
dated 25.01.20L2, the Government imposr:
penalty, followed by consequential proceec
SN,J
It.l .llo.r397O of 2023
r and to pass
:; that the
Khammam
.2001 under
lr: revolver
rg a death.
:he Principal
ll No.93 of
r:ident was
iled 0.A. SR
re Tribunal,
after the
l)espite the
even after
ause notice
t,tld 50Yo of
O.Ms.No.12
I the said
ir.rgs dated
4
sN,l
ul.P.no.l3970 of 2023
15.02.2012. Additionally, a sum of Rs.3,00,000/-, paid to
the legal heirs of the deceased, was recovered from the
petitioner's pensionary benefits on 18.07.2014. Aggrieved
by the same, the petitioner had approached this court by
filing the present writ petition.
4, PERUSED THERECORD:
(A)The averments made in the counter
affidavit filed bv the resoondents.tnDarticular. oaras
and 9are e ereunde
"6. In response to paras - 9 to 14, it is respectfully
submitted that, the connected OE records along with
service particulars and defaulter sheet were sent to the
Government for taking further action against the charged
officer (Retired) under Rule 9 (2) of A.P. Revised Pension
Rules,1980. After careful examination of the entire
matter and based on the records made available,
Governmentave provisionallv decideto imoose a
penalW of withholdinq of50o/o Dension for a oeriod
of five vearsunder Rule 9 of A.P. Revised Pension
Rules, 1980. issued a Show-cause-notice vide Govt.Memo
No. 13744lsec.l/A212011-1, Dt.O1.08.2011 calling for his
explanation, if any. He acknowledged the Show-cause-
notice on 21.09.2011. The charged officer submitted his
explanation to the show-cause- notice and requested to
drop further action, for the reasons mentioned therein.
5
st{,,
W f i o.1397O of 2023
After taking the explanation of the charg( r( officer into
consideration, Government have decided I l impose a
penalty of withholding of 5oo/o pension for i reriod of (5)
years on the charged officer', under Rule ! (1) of A.P.
Revised Pension Rules, 1980 read with rul : 20 of APCS
(CC&A) Rules, 1991, vide G.O.Ms. No, 12 Home
(SERVICES-I), Dept., Dt.25.01.2012, :rnmunicated
through C.O.Endt.Rc.No.4477/Af peal-1/2010,
DL.O2.02.2O12. Pursuant to the above, in purs lance orders
were issued by this office vide R ( .No.82l2012
(C.No.02lPV2012), Dt. 15.O2.2012.
7.n resonse toras -
-:eEpcetfully
submitted that. oroceedinos in a crimirr rl case and
the deoartmental'ceedinos oDerate ir
- !istinct and
different iurisdictional areas. Where
departmental proceedings, where a charge
misconduct is being investigated, the factor s
the mind of the disciplinary authority may be r
enforcement of discipline or to investigat(
integrity of the delinquent or the other staff
of proof required in those proceedings is also,
that of criminal case. While in the
proceedings the standard or proof is one of
1r
of the probabilities, in a criminal case, the ch l
proved by the prosecution beyond reas{l
Herein, the departmental proceedings is basec
grounds and not on the same set of facts
criminal case. As per A.P. Police Manual Orde
"when a criminal Court acquits an officer
technical ground or due to hostility of witness€
rs in the
relating to
()perating in
rany such as
the level of
:1e standard
irferent than
l spartmental
e,ponderance
(te has to be
able doubt.
rrn collateral
r,rsed in the
'No.1s1 (2)
:n a purely
; or on some
6
sl{,J
W.P.No.l3970 ol 2O23
other fact other than misconduct, it does not prohibit the
department from proceeding against him in departmental
proceedings".
9, It is respectfully submitted that, as per Rule 3 of the
APCS (Conduct) Rule, 1964 a Government servant shall do
nothing which is unbecoming of a Government servant. It
is the exigencies of circumstances that alone can determine
as to what is becoming or unbecoming for a Government
servant to do or not do. The charges attributed against the
petitioner are grave in nature. As per the standing Orders
and Rules in vogue, a person should fully fit into the
eligibility criteria. Pendency of Oral Enquiry or under
currency of any punishment shall restrain the candidate
from being considered for promotion to the next higher
rank in service. Herein. the oetiioner retired on
suoerannuation on attainino the aoe of 58 vears
w.e.f.3O.11.2OO4 while facinq orave charoes. If
Government were to sit bck and oermit its officials
to commit anv outraoe ineir orivate !ives. orovided
it falls short of a crimina! offence, the result mav
verv well be a catastroDhic fal! in the moral orestiqe
of the administrataon. The behaviour of the Detitioner
is considered morallv wrono and offensive and thus
deserves no reorieve.
(B) The order impuoned dated 25.01.2O12
issued bv the 1'tresDOndent vide G.O.Ms.No.12. is
extractedereu nder:
7
st{.J
.t .lto.13970 0f 2023
Read tlr.J
-followino:-
"1. From the Director General of Police, A.P., l. l,derabad,
Letter Rc. No.447 1 / Appeal-7/20 10, datei :19.04.20 1 1.
2.Govt. Memo No.13744lser.llA2|2OLL-1, d; I -.d 1.8.2011.
3. From Sri Sk.Sarwar Pasha, Inspector.of Pr r:e (Retired),
Explanation dated 21.9.201 1.
4.Govt. Letter
20.t2.20tr.
No.13744lser.llA2/201 -2, dated
Andhra Pradesh
)
r tlic Service
Letter No.1920/ \l-7/3l20ll,
5. From the Secretary,
Commission, Hyderabad
dated 3.1.2012.
o-o-o
DER:
The Director General of Police, A.P.,
F
/derabad, in
his letter ls read above, has reported that S ri Sk.Sarwar
Pasha, Inspector of Police, formerly of Kharr nam District
(now retired) was handed upon a charge un,! rr Rule-2O of
APCS (CC&A) Rules, 1991, vide I temorandum
No.31/C/2001, dated 10.12.2001 of Depr ), Inspector
General of Police, Warangal Range, Warar 3al, for the
following delinquency: -
"Exhibited gross dereliction of duty ir handling his
.38 service revolver in a rash and neglil tnce manner
and fired one round resulting in the jeath of Sri
Muvvala Tulasidas. a businessman, r/o t l-ammam".
The Addl. Superintendent of police (Admr ). Warangal
Rural, who was appointed as Enquiry )fficer, has
conducted the O.E. and submitted his findings holding the
charge as proved against the Charged Offics', A copy of
the inquiry report was served on the charged c Iicer, calling
his further representation if any thereon.
'he
charged
officer has submitted his further representirt on thereon.
Since the charged officer had retired frorr service on
30.11.2004 on superannuation. the Direct<,r General of
Police, A.P. Hyderabad has forwarded thr ,3n1;rg g.g.
records to the Government to conclude -e
disciplinary
proceedings under Rule-9 of A.P. Revised Fe rsion Rules,
1980.
8
s,,
W.P. o.1397O of 2023
2. After careful examination of the entire matter and
based on the records made available, Government have
provisionally decided to impose a penalty of 'withholding of
50% pension for a period of (5) years on Sri Sk.Sarwar
Pasha, Inspector of Police, formerly of Khammam District
(now retired), under Rule 9 of A.P. Revised Pension Rules,
1980, for the charge held proved in the enquiry.
3. In Govt. Memorandum 2nd read above, a show cause
notice was issued to the said Retired Charged Officer, duly
indicating the quantum of cut in pension, as required under
A.P. Revised Pension Rules, 1980.
4. In the reference 3'd read above, the Charged Officer
has Submitted his explanation to the show cause notice
and requested the Government to drop further action, for
the reasons mentioned therein.
5. After taking the explanation of the Charged
Officer into consideration, Government have decided
to impose a penalty of 'withholding of 5oo/o pension
for a period of (5) years' on Sri Sk. Sarwar pasha,
Inspector of Police, formerly of Khammam District
(now retired), and sought the advice of Andhra
Pradesh Public Service Commission thereon, vide
reference 4th read above.
6. The Secretary, Andhra Pradesh Public Service
Commission, in his letter 5th read above, has
conveyed the concurrence of the Commission on the
proposal of the Government.
7. Government after careful examination of the entire
matter hereby impose the penalty of withholding of 50%
pension for a period of five years on Sri Sk.Sarwar
pasha,
Inspector of Police, formerly of Khammam District (now
retired), under Rule-9 (1) of A.P.Revised Pension Rules,
1980. read with rule 20 of APCS (CC&A) Rules, 1991.
8. A copy of the letter sth read above received from the
Secretary, Andhra Pradesh Public Service Commission, is
herewith furnished to Sri Sk.Sarwar Pasha, Inspector of
Police, formerly of Khammam District (now retired), as
required under Rule-44 of APCS (CC&A) Rules, 1991.
9
SN,J
W P Yo.13970 of 2023
9. The Director General of Police, A.P., l,,lerabad, is
requested to take follow up action on impl -. r entation of
the said penalty. The records received in thr'
-,:ference
1't
read above, are herewith returned to the Di r ctor General
of Police, A.P., Hyderabad and receipt of th< ;ame should
be acknowledged.
(BY ORDER AND IN THE NAME OF THE GO\/ IINOR OF
ANDHRA PRADESH)
P. GAUTAM KUNI, ,tI
PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO ( ( ,\/ERNMENT"
(c)The conseouential proceedinqs rf the 3d
respondent vide C.No.O2lPR/2O12, R.O.N(
=
a2120L2,
dated 15.O2.2O12. is extracted hereunder:
"Sub: -Public Services - Police Departmen:
Ra nge- Disciplina ry proceedings ir(
Sk.Sarwar Pasha, Inspector of P )
Khammam District - Charge held provrrr
withholding of 50o/o pension for a periorl
under rule 9 of A.P. Revised Pension ,l
Imposed - Orders - Issued.
'. Warangal
a inst S ri
(:e (Retd).
- Penalty of
:f five years
r es, 198O -
Ref:-l) This office articles of charge memo (:, \o.31/C/O1,
dr. 10-12-01.
2) This office Memo C.No.31/C/ZOOL. D' . 29-1-02.
3) Minutes in C.No.2/OE-Addl. SP(A)-R/C )-10, dt.30-
10-10 drawn Addl. SP(Admn), Waranga (ural.
4) This office Memo C.No.31/C/Ot, dtd.tt l 1-2010.
5) Further Representation dt. 12-12
- 10 of Sri
Sk.Sarwar Pasha, Inspector of Pol 6s (Retd),
Khammam District.
6) This office letter C.No.3l/Cl2OOl, dr.22-72-2OlO
7) This office letter C.No.3I/C{ZOOL. dt.{ -2-11
10
sll,]
w-P.No.r3970 of 2o23
8) G.O.Ms. No. 12 Home (Ser-1) Dept... dt.25-1-12
communicated with C,O. Endt. Rc. No.447LlAppeal-
5/10. dt. 2-2-2072.
ORDER:
Sri Sk. Sarwar Pasha, Inspector of police (Retired) of
Khammam District was handed upon a charge involving
oral enquiry under Rule 20 of APCS (CC & A) Rules 1991
vide reference 1s cited above for the following delinquency.
*Exhibited
gross dereliction of duty in handling his
.38 service revolver in a rash and negligent manner
and fired one round resulting in the death of Sri
Muvvala Tulasidas. a buslnessman, r/o Khammam,,.
2. The Addl. Superintendent of police (Admn),
Warangal was appointed as an Inquiring Authority to
inquire into charges framed against charged officers vide
reference 2nd cited.
3. The Enquiry Officer has conducted regular oral enquiry
against the charged officer as required under Rule 20 of
APCS (CC&A) Rules. 1991 giving them all reasonable and
admissible opportunities and submitted his findings duly
holding the charge as 'Proved' vide reference 3.d cited.
Agreeing with the findings of Enquiry Officer a copy of
minute was supplied to him calling for his further
representations, if any, vide reference 4th cited. Having
acknowledged the copy of minute the charged offlcer has
submitted his further representation vide reference 5th
cited.
4. Since Sri Sk. Sarwar Pasha, Inspector of police (R6tired)
of Khammam District has retired from service on
superannuation pension w.e.f. 31-11-2004. the entire O.E.
file was sent to Chief Officer for onward sending to
Government for taking action against him under rule 9 (2)
of A.P. Revised Pension Rules. 1980 vide reference 6th
cited.
5. The Government after examining the entire matter
has imposed the penalty of withholding of 50o/o pension for
a period of five years on Sri Sk.Sarwar Pasha, Inspector of
il
SN,J
It I llo.l397O of 2023
Police (Retired) of Khammam District under
-rrle
9 (1) of
A.P. Revised Pension Rules, 1980 read with r r e 20 of APCS
(CC&A) Rules, 1991 vide reference 8th cited.
6. In pursuance of Government ( rders vide
reference 8th cited Sri Sk.Sarwar Pasha, . nspector of
Police (Retired) of Khammam Dastrict is i warded the
penalty of "withholding of 5oo/o pensior trr a period
of five years".
'Certified that the procedure prescrib
-. I under Rule
20 of APCS (CC&A) Rules, 1991 has :::n correctly
followed'.
sd/-
Dy.Inspector Ge r :ral of Police,
Karimnagar Rang,: l(arimnagar,
HAC of Wir rrgal Range"
DThe relevanDortaon of the ver! ict
passedt
lnCrtminal Aooeal No93of 2OO9 on 08.I et.2010. in
Darticular, in favourof the Detitioner her! in at para
Nos.22, 23 and 24 isextracted hereunder:
"22. The observations of the tearned Ma-r
the accused-police officer who was h
raiding pafi ought not to have used th,:
nab the naxalites who were un arm()r
accused-police officer being a senior r
police officer ought to have handled
revolver with more care and cautioil
accused-police officer has failed to handle
revolver properly and that therefore he
the offence punishable U/s.3O4-A IPC drr
to be based on proper appreciation of t1
istrate that
:ading the
revolver to
, that the
xperienced
he service
that the
t he service
is guilty of
not appear
r facts and
t2
sit,J
u,-P.No.13970 of Xt23
law. The learned Maoistrate failed to aooreciate that
there was absolutelv no nexus between the resutt
and thintention orthe knowledoeof the
a poellant/accused.
23.In view of the foreooino discussion.is held
that theorosecution failto Drove its casethat the
accused acted in a rash and neolioent manner so as
to attract theDenal Drovisions ofsection 3O4-A IPC.
Therefore. the accused as entitled to anacouittal and
fh Iudmenfhdina alharwica ic li=hla
to be set asie. The Doint is accordtnolv answered.
24.nther eal is a
aside the convaction and sentence passed bv the rI
Addl. Juicial Maoistrate of First Class, Khamam tn
C.C.No.462 of 2OO4.dt.26.o8.2009nd the
aooellant/accused is acouitted for the offence
punishable U/s.3O4 IPC, Fine amount if anv paid bv
the aooellant shall be returned to tha ooetlant."
5. The learnedcounsel aDDearino on behalf of the
oer mainl u the
submissions:
(i) The petitioner attained superannuation on
30.11.2004, and the order impugned dated 25.Ol.2otz
issued vide G.O.Ms.No.12, imposing a penalty of withholding
of 50yo of the petitioner's pension for a period of five years
l3
SN,J
l .l t1o.13970 of 2023
under Rule 9 of A.P. Revised Pension Rule; 1980 was
passed after petitioner's retirement. Henct, the order
impugned is illegal.
(ii) On the very same set of facts-, a c iminal case
had been registered against the petitioner in (l 1.No.462 of
2004 wherein the petitioner was convicted and : e ntenced to
undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for Six montlr and a fine
of Rs.1,000/- for the offence under Sectio,) 304-A IPC
against the petitioner herein. Aggrieved by tt ) same, the
petitioner preferred Criminal Appeal No.93 of ; ()09 on the
file of the Court of the Principal Sessiorr: Judge at
Khammam, and the said Appeal was allowed or 08.10.2010
in favour of the petitioner herein.
(iii) In view of the clear finding in f lr>ur of the
petitioner in the verdict dated 08.10.2010 in Cr r r nal Appeal
No.93 of 2009, wherein it was held that the I :l:itioner did
not act in a rash or negligent manner or r lhibit gross
dereliction in discharging petitioner's duties. hence the
petitioner is entitled for the relief as praye( I lbr by the
petitioner in the present writ petition.
t4
sil,J
w.P.No.1397O of 2O23
(iv) But however, without considering the
explanation dated 22.09.2011 furnished by the petitioner
herein in response to the show cause notice dated
01.08.2011 issued to the petitioner by the Respondent No.1,
and the clear flndings recorded in favour of the petitioner by
the verdict dated 08.10.2010 passed in Criminal Appeal
No.93 of 2009 on the file of the Court of the Principal
Sessions Judge, Khammam, the order impugned daed
25.01.20t2 by the l't respondent and the consequential
proceedings dated 15.02.2012 had been issued by the 3'd
respondent mechanically, and in a routine and casual
ma n ner.
Based on the aforesaid submissions, the learned
counsel aooearinq on behalf of the oetitioner
n h er is entitled for the r
as prayed for bv the petitioner in thepresent writ
petition.
6, The learned AssistanGovernment Pleader
!aci nreliance ote rmens made
counter affidavit filed on behalf of the resoondents
mainlv puts forth the followinq submissions:
t5
SN,J
W f l\o.L397o of 2023
(i) That the order impugned is dated 25 ('...20t2 and
the consequential proceedings of the 3'd re:;1 ondent are
dated 15.02.2012 are legal and valid. Tlrr petitioner
approached this Court only in the year-202 1 and hence
there is inordinate delay on the part of the
1 t:titioner in
approaching this Court for the relief as praye c for by the
petitioner in the presence writ petition and ht:r t:e the writ
petition is liable to be dismissed on the ground c'delay, and
laches.
(ii) There is no illegality in the orde- impugned
dated 25.01.2012 and 15.02.2OI2 in the l-()sent writ
petition and the same had been passec strictlytn
accordance to law.
(iii) The explanation of the petitioner h,r I been duly
considered and the penalty of withholding i )yo of the
petitioner's pension for a period of 5 years unr r r Rule 9 of
A.P. Revised Pension Rules, 1980 had been rnposed in
accordance to law which warrants no interfer I l,:e by this
Court.
l6
s?{,J
W.P-i|o.13970 of 2O23
Based othe aforesaidubmissions. thelearned
stant G
the reso
t Plead on a
ndents contendshat the writ oetition needs
to be dismissed.
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION:
7. It is the specific case of the petitioner that the charges
which formed the basis for initiation of the criminal
proceedings against the petitioner are identical to the
charges in the disciplinary proceedings. On the very same
subject issue, the petitioner obtained final orders in Criminal
Appeal No.93 of 2009, wherein the conviction and sentence
passed by the II Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class,
Khammam in C.C.No.462 of 2OO4 dated 26.08.2009 were
set aside and the petitioner was acquitted of the offence
punishable under Section 304-A IPC. In view of the said
acquittal, the impugned proceedings dated 25.01.2072 and
consequential proceedings dated 15.02.2072 of the 3d
respondent are totally unwarranted and uncalled for. But
I
t1
SN,J
w.: lo.l397o of 2023
however, without considering these vital aspec:: , the order
impugned had been passed mechanically.
8. A bare perusal of the record and the impugned
proceedings dated 25.01.2012 issued against t1 ) petitioner
vide G.O.Ms.No.12 clearly indicates thal the said
proceedings are bereft of reasons. The impugnec ,lrder does
not reflect any consideration of the detailed :xplanation
dated 22.09.2011 submitted by the petitioner ir l-'sponse to
the Show cause notice dated 01.08.2011 iss l3d to the
petitioner herein. Further, the order impugn : I does not
indicate any discussion with regard to the spec f c pleas put
forth by the petitioner in the petitioner's r( [ resentation
dated 22.09.2011.
9. The iudqment ofthe Aoex Court r! pqted_-io
2OO5 5 SCC 446 in GM.Tank Vs. State of
(i riarat and
others in oarticular,araoraoh No.3O at d 31areD
extracted hereunder
"3O. The judgments relied on by the l,:arned
counsel appearing for the responde^::; are
distinguishable on facts and on law. In thj i case,
.fr
l8
s,,
w-p,No.139rO of 2023
e e me G s d
craminal cse arebasedonidenticaI and
stmilar setof facts andthecharoeina
aental inst a ant
ceb crlm c a
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
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
l9
stl'.!
w. ,.
r( .13970 0f 2023
acquitted the appellant by its judicial
pronouncement with the finding that the 65; r7e has
not been proved. It is also to be noticed t lat the
iudicial Dronouncement was made : fter a
reoular trial and on hot contest. Undtl _these
eircuflstances, it would be uniust anrt.Unfair
11
ldinosand rather oppressive to allow the
recorded in the departmenta! proceerlr nqs to
sta nd.
31. In our opinion, such facts and evi I l'rce in
the departmental as well as criminal proc : -.dings
were the same without there being any irrta of
difference, the appellant should succe l I The
distinction which is usually proved bet ( 3n the
departmental and criminal proceedings on 'l e basis
of the approach and burden of proof woull rrot be
applicable in the instant case. Though thr: finding
recorded in the domestic enquiry was fou r I to be
valid by the courts below, when there
honourable acouI of the emolovee_ Jurino
the oendencv of the oroceedinqs chal! inoino
the dismissal, the same reouires to be taken
note of and the decisio n in Paul tl..,r$hgly
ease [(1999) 3 SCC 6791999 SC(,.l'L&S)
810'l wil! aoolv. We, therefore, hold :l .rt the
appeal filed by the appellant deserves i:o be
allowed. "
! ,as
an
20
SN,J
W.P.No.13970 of 2023
10. The Aoex Court.nthe iudqment dated
12O23 rerted in 2023 nli 1
"Ramlal Vs. State of Raiasthan and others", in
a rticu la ratrarhN
u nder:
2n2
28. Expressions like "benefit of doubt" and
"honourably acquitted", used in judgments are not
to be understood as magic incantations. A court of
law will not be carried away by the mere use of
such terminology. In the present case, the
Appellate Judge has recorded that Ext. P-3, the
original mark sheet carries the date of birth as 21-
4-7972 and the same has also been proved by the
witnesses examined on behalf of the prosecution.
The conclusion that the acquittal in the criminal
proceeding was after full consideration of the
prosecution evidence and that the prosecution
miserably failed to prove the charge can only be
arrived at after a reading of the judgment in its
entirety. The Court in judicial review is obliged to
examine the substance of the judgment and not go
by the form of expression used.
29. We are satisfied that the findings of the
Appellate Judge in the criminal case clearly indicate
\
2t
SR,.!
W.P.ll( 13970 of 2023
that the charge against the appellant was nl
"not proved"
-
in fact the charge ever
"disproved" by the very prosecution eviderr,
held by this Court, a fact is said to be "disJr
when, after considering the matters before
court either believes that it does not ex
conslders its non-existence so orobable
j ust,
s;tood
er. As
cved"
r. the
s t or
bE!-a
!-Eces
_ the
'
alleged
r: wife of
996. The
r>ller at
ate Road
r'.c'). A
rer after
i ile the
l; on the
' alleged
framing
of 1996
. P.C) by
armou nts
dnt man
heartic
nder the circum
asetoct
I
t
T
suDoosrion thatit does not exist.
11. The Division Bench iudqment of this_lourt in
A.P.S.R.T.C. Vs. T.Vekataoati reoorted in
A.P.L.J-189(HC). inW.A.No.124of 199!. dated
04.o2.1999 is extracted heu nder: -
1.999(1)
1. The writ petitioner was prosecuted f r
offence of murder of his wife. The death of :
petitioner took place on 25th of February. 1
petitioner was working as Depot Cor t
Srikalahasti Depot of the Andhra Praclesh l;'
Transport Corporation (for short the 'l
prosecution was initiated against the petit (
registration of crime. In the mean I
department initiated departmental proceedi r
following charge
"For having involved in a criminal case c
killing on 25-2-1996 which has resulted r
criminal case against you as Crime No. 3J
under Sec. 302 of the Indian penal
Code (
Muthyalareddypalli police station which
22
s1{,J
W.P.No.t397O of 2023
misconduct under Sec. 29 (xxxi) of A.p.S.R.T.C.
Employees Conduct Regulations, 1963."
2. The criminal prosecution initiated against the
petitioner ultimately ended in acquittal in S.C.No. 1 of
1997 before the learned IV Additional Sessions Judge,
Tirupathi by judgment dated B-8-1997. The said
acquittal has become Final. However, the disciplinary
authority in the departmental-enquiry, upon
completion of the enquiry passed orders on 28-11-
1996 removing the petitioner from service. The
petitioner preferred appeal against the said order. The
same was dismissed. The review petition was also
dismissed by the Regional Manager of the R.T.C. As a
result, the petitioner filed the writ petition to
challenge the order of his removal.
3. The learned Single Judge held that l the
disciplinary authority was in error in holding the
petitioner guilty of the charge framed against him in
disciplinary proceedings in view of the judgment of
the Court. The petitioner-delinquent was entitled to be
cleared of the charge in disciplinary enquiry and
accordingly allowed the writ petition.
4. Challenging the order of the learned single Judge,
the R.T.C. has filed this Writ Appeal. We find no merit
in the appeal inspite of the persuasion of the learned
counsel for the appellant-R.T.C. We have already
pointed out as to what charge was framed in the
disciplinary enquiry against the petitioner. It has to be
noted that the charge was not for the substantive act
of havingcaused death of the wife. The charqe was
onlv that petitioner was involved in a criminal
case and the said involvement hadresulted in
framino ofa criminal case for offence under
Section 3O2of the I.P.C. Theargument of the
learned counsel for the appellant is that in course of
the enquiry the petitioner had himself stated that
death of his wife was result of his delinquency. It is
argued that in view of this admission of the petitioner
the disciplinary authority was justified in accepting the
23
SN,.l
W.P.t ( ll97O ol 2023
same and Court cannot reappreciate the ev r trnce. We
fail to understand as to how the stat:rnent of
petitioner was relevant in the instant case.
The charqe was onlv for involvemr nt in a
criminal case resultinq in institutir q of a
criminal case aoainst the oetitioner. A! _soon as
the criminal caitself was founto be(
untenabletncourt of law, the verv ba: is of the
charoe was knoced out. The chart
haye been quashed as and when thr: ,:riminal
case ended in acquittal. Involveme'rt in a
crimina! case which was not tenable i11 .llourt of
law can hardlvamount to anv delinr
1 1encv. It
1 I should
cannot be disputed that the disciplinary ;r
entitled to hold O disciplinary enquiry or
charge as is before a Criminal Court b,:
scope of disciplinary enquiry and a crim r
different. But where the charge in the c
enquiry is necessarily dependent 5 on the re
criminal case if the criminal case itself enc:
of the delinquent, the charge in the c
enquiry will become unsustainable one. I't
and circumstances of the case having rerl
charge framed against the petitioner trr
regard to the result of the crimindl case,
'1
manner of doubt that the learned single
right in allowing the petitioner's claim.
rthority is
the sa me
:ause the
e I trial is
:;ciplinary
;ult of the
in favour
l:;ciplina ry
the Facts
|d to the
<l having
-. have no
rdge was
In view of the clear observations of the Apex
Court in the three Judgments 1999 (3) SCC r,;79, 2023
SCC Online SC 1618, 2006 5 SCC 446 and th r Division
Bench Judgment of this Court in A.P.S.R.'[ (:. Vs. T.
Venkatapati, reported in 1999 (1) A.P.L.J., .89 (HC),
referred to and extracted above, this Cou rt opines
that the Respondent No.1 and ResponC:nt No.3
24
sN,J
W.P.No.13970 of 2(,23
herein failed to take into consideration the specifac
pleas of the petitioner that the charge framed against
the petitioner in the disciptinary proceedings dated
10.12.2001 and the Charge Sheet issued against the
petitioner in Crime No.17S of 2OO1 for the offence
punishable under Section 3O4-A of IpC was based on
the same set of facts and the petitioner had been
acquitted for the said offence vide verdict dated
08.10.2010 in C.A.No.93 of 2OO9 and hence the very
charge framed against the petitioner in the
disciplinary proceedings had been knocked out.
L2. The Aoex Cort in theiudoment reoorted!n
zfJ22 SCC Onine SC 22inSuil KumarRai & Others
Vs.tate of Bihar &hers dad 21.02.o22 at Paras
7. A.1O. and11 obseedasunder:
Para 7. Article 32 of the Constitution provides for a
Fundamental Right to approach the Supreme Court for
enforcement of the Fundamental Rights. The founding
fathers contemplated that the very right to approach
this Court when there is a violation of Fundamental
Rights, should be declared as beyond the reach of
Parliament and, therefore, it is as a part of judicial
review that the right under Article 32 has been put in
place and invoked from time to time. That in a given
case, the Court may refuse to entertain a petition
under Article 32 of the Constitution is solely a part of
25
self-restraint which is exercised by the C c
regard to various considerations which are
r
the interest of justice as also the appropr
the Court to interfere in a particular cas:
under Article 32 of the Constitution
Fundamental Right and it is always open t
complaining of violation of Fundamental
approach this Court. This is, no doubt, sr- t
power of the Court to relegate the part
proceedings.
Para I : At the heart of the Constitutior
principles which have, in fact, been recogrt
of the basic structure. Article 14 of the
(
proclaims right to equality. The right a<;,
State action is part of Article 14. Un€(
treated equally is tabooed under Articlt:
Constitution. A person entitled to be t-
member of Scheduled Tribe under Article .
be treated on par with a person who is br
an incompetent Body, viz., the State in
I
done. Article 21 of the Constitution e(
fountain head of many rights which are
grand mandate which has been from t t
unravelled by this Court giving rise to t1
unenumerated rights under the Constitt'
liberty is a dynamic concept capable of e r
within it a variety of Rights, the irreducill
and at the very core of libertY, is fr:
unjustifiable custody.
10. We may take up the first preliminary
'
the State, namely, that the Petiti(
approached this Court with considerablt:
impugned Notification is issued in Augtt
person cannot be said to be aggrieved r
the issuance of an instrument or of a lau'
fact, the Court may refuse to examine tll
the validity of a law or order on the basis
have no locus standi or that he is not :
person. No doubt, the Courts have
challenge to even a legislation at the han I
SN.J
t^,.P n ).13970 of 2023
u rt having
ormane to
eteness of
The right
'emains
a
) a person
Rights to
i3ct to the
/ to other
ies certain
;ed as part
:onstitution
inst unfair
ruals being
t4 of the
rated as a
.12, cannot
rrght in by
fe manner
rrin is the
rart of the
1e to time
r theory of
t on. While
:lmpassing
: minimum
:dom from
,lljection by
T ers have
rJelay. The
t, 2016. A
r,:rely upon
f y itself. In
: legality or
frat he may
r aggrieved
recognized
; of a public
I
26
st{,J
w.P.No.13970 0( 2023
interest litigant. However, we may only indicate,
ordinarily, the Court may insist on a cause of action
and therefore, a person must be an aggrieved party to
maintain a challenge. We must not be oblivious to the
fact that based on the Notification, it appears that
FIRs came to be lodged by persons claiming to be
members of the Scheduled Tribe community and
seeking to invoke the 1989 Act. The FIRs lodged in the
year 2020 occasioned the petitioners to approach
Courts seeking protection under Section 438 of the
Cr.P.C. Two of the petitioners have not secured such
protection. Petitioner No. 1, it appears was not
arrested. But even assuming for a moment, that the
petitioners have come with some delay, we find
reassurance from the opinion of this Court in the
judgment reported in Assamanmilita Mahasnqha v,
Union of India (2015)3SCC1, wherein this Court has
inter alia held as follows:-
32. ".....Further, in Olga Tellis v.
Bombay Municipal Corpn., it has now been
concl usivelvheld that all fundamental
riqhtscannot be waived (at oara 29. Given
these imDortant devlooments in te law,
the time has come forthis Court tov that
east wh mes t ions ofh
fundamental riqhtto life and Dersona !
!i bertv.delav orlaches byitself without
ore woul e suffito shut
doorsof the courton anv oetitioner. "
11. Therore, wedo notthink we should be
detaied bv the obiection. We would think that
delavbv itself cannot beused as a weaoon to
Veton action uner Article 3when violation of
FundamentalRiqhts is clearlv at stake.
13. This Court opines that the impugned proceedings
dated 25.O1.2o12 by the 1"t respondent and the
t
27
SN,J
W P lr.l3970 of 2023
consequentaal proceedangs dated 15.O2.2C12 by the
3'd respondent issued against the petition:r are not
sustainable as per law and are liable to b,: !;et aside.
The material on record clearly shows that the
petitioner was acquitted by the competert appellate
Court of the very same charges that forme< the basis
for initiating the disciplinary proceedings In such
circumstances, the continuation of discipli r rry action
on identical allegations cannot be justified Moreover/
the impugned order dated 25.01.2012 is; bereft of
reasons and does not reflect any considera,l ion of the
detailed exptanation submitted by the p,etitioner
thereby indicating non-application of mind. nsofar as
the plea of delay and laches is concerned, the same
cannot be accepted, as the petitioner rad been
continuously representing before the r.r:;pondent
authorities seeking redressal of l, ltitioner.s
grievance. Therefore, the delay cannot be rttributed
to the petationer so as to deny the relief as: ought for
by the petitioner herein, and the same cann( t be used
against the petitioner to deprive the t,r titioner,s
28
slt.J
W.P,t{o.13970 or 2023
fundamental right to approach this Court seeking
Justice.
14. In view of the observations of the Apex Court in
the Judgment reported in 2022 SCC Online SC 232 in
Sunil Kumar Rai's case (referred to and extracted
above) and duly taking note of the fact that the
disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the
petitioner after petitioner's superannuation on
30.11.2OO4 and the orders impugned had been passed
against the petitioner in the year 2OL2, this Court
opines that the plea of delay put forth by the tearned
counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents is
untenable and hence rejected.
15. TAKING INTO NSIDERATION:
a) The aforesaid facts and circumstances of the
case,
b) The submissions made by the learned counsel
appearing on behalf of the petitioner and the learned
29
SN,J
W.P-\.13970of2023
Assastant Government Pleader appearing orr behalf of
the respondents,
c) The averments made in the counter affidavit
filed by the respondents, in particular, par:r r 6, 7 and
9 (referred to and extracted above),
d) The order impugned dated 25.01.201!l issued by
the 1"t respondent vide G.O.Ms.No,12 (refer r:d to and
extracted above),
e) The consequential proceedings dated 15.O2.2O1,2
of the 3"' respondent vide C.No.O2 . PR/201-2,
R.O.No.82l2O12 (referred to and extracted , rtoove)
f) The observations of the Apex CoL rt in the
various Judgments (referred to and extract rd above),
and again enlisted below:
(i) 2006 5 SCC 446 in G.M.Tank Vs. S tate of
Gujarath and others,
(ii) (1999) 3 SCc 679 : 1999 sCC (Lrt S) B1O,
t0
SN,'
w.P.No.13970 of 2023
(iii) 2023 SCC Online SC 1618 in Ramlal Vs.
State of Rajasthan and others,
(iii) 1999 (1) APLJ, 189 (HC) in ApSRTC Vs.
T.Venkatapata
(iv) 2022 SCC Online SC 232 in Suni! Kumar Rai
& Others Vs. State of Bihar & Others
g) The observations in the Division Bench iudgment
of this Court in A.P.S.R.T.C. Vs. T.Venkatapati reported
in 1999(1) A.P.L.J. 189(HC), in W.A.No.124 ot Lggg,
dated O4.02.1999(referred to and extracted above)
h) The discussion and conclusion as arrived at
paragraph Nos.7 to 14 of the present order,
The writ petition is allowed. The order impugned
dated 25.01.2012 issued by the 1't Respondent vide
G.O.Ms.No.12 and the consequential impugned
proceedings dated L5.O2.2OL2 issued by the 3..t
Respondent are set aside, and the matter is remitted
to the 1't respondent herein for reconsiderataon of the
subject issue afresh duly reconsidering the
petitioner's explanation dated 22.O9.2011 submitted
/\
.lI
SN,J
W.P. ! . t3970 of 2023
by the petitioner in response to the Show car s;e notice
dated Ot.Og.ZO]-L. duly taking into consider rtion the
observations of the apex court and the divisi rn bench
of this Court in the judgments referrerl to and
extracted above, and pass appropriate oiders within a
period of four (O4) weeks from the date of rr: :eipt of a
copy of the order, in accordance to iarl and in
conformity with principles oflaw by prov iriing an
opportunity of personat hearing to the p, rtitioner.
There shall be no order as to costs,
Miscellaneous petitions, iF any, pendingthis WritI
Petition, shall stand closed.
SD/. M.OSMAN ALI BAIG
{I] STANT REGISTRAR
i
//TRUE COPY//
SECTION OFFICER
V
1. The Principal Secretary, Home Department, Secretaria' iuildings, Hyderabad,
State of Telangana.
2. The Director General of Police, Telangana State, Lakar i k.a-Pool, Hyderabad.
3- The Deputy lnspector General of Police, Karimnaga r iange, Karimnagar,
HAC of Warangal Range, Warangal, Telangana.
4. The Accountant General, State of Telangana, S; ilabad, Khairatabad,
Hyderabad - 500004.
5. One CC to SRI NAYAKAWADI RAMESH, Advocate [O, -C]
6. One CC to SRI K.BALAKRISHNA, SC FOR AG [OPUCI
7. Two CCs to GP FOR SERVICES-I, High Court for the itate of Telangana at
Hyderabad
[OUT]
8. Two CD Copies
^e
\
To
BSR
PSK
(
\
fl|o
v_
--'{
CC TODAY
HIGH COURT
DATED: 2010112026
ORDER
WP.No.13970 of 2023 2 | iAn ?026
(:)
a:
o1\
:-- -.::__
_.,rftif
-(,
\.
t
(
._)
(-)
1,.,-i2
t.'':t.
'\-Dt,
-t.-:
ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION,
WITHOUT COSTS
\
Legal Notes
Add a Note....