HONOURABLE JUSTICE G. SRI DEVI
CRL.R.C.No.77 of 2021
ORDER:
1. The present revision, under Section 401 Cr.P.C., has been filed by the revision petitioner against the impugned docket order, dated 04.01.2021, passed in C.F.No.126 of 2020, by the Special Sessions Judge for trial of S.Cs and S.Ts (POA) Cases-cum-Additional District Judge, Nalgonda, wherein the learned Special Sessions Judge, dismissed the private complaint filed by the revision petitioner against respondents 2 to 11 herein.
2. The relevant facts which led to filing of the present revision are that the revision petitioner filed a private complaint against respondents 2 to 11. It is alleged by the revision petitioner in the complaint that he belongs to Scheduled Caste (Mala) community and that the respondents have maintained discrimination on the revision petitioner, as they did not consider his representation for rectification of his Date of Birth in his service register. It is further alleged that he filed W.A.No.622 of 2018, wherein this Court directed the Principal Secretary to Government to consider his representation, however, the respondents failed to comply with the directions of this Court. It is further alleged that the respondents neglected their legitimate duties as public servants and did not rectify his Date of Birth and as such they have committed the offences punishable under Sections 3 (1) (q) (r) and 4 (1) of the 2 GSD, J Crl.rc_77_2021 Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Act, 2015 (for short "the Act") by referring the matter to Miryalaguda Town Police Station under Section 156 (3) of the Cr.P.C.
3. After recording the sworn statements of the revision petitioner and other two witnesses, the learned Special Sessions Judge dismissed the said private complaint. Challenging the same, the present Criminal Revision Case is filed.
4. Heard learned Counsel for the revision petitioner and learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents.
5. Learned Counsel for the revision petitioners would submit that the order of the Court below is neither just nor sustainable either in law or on facts. It is further submitted that the Court below erred in dismissing the complaint on the ground that no prima facie case is made out and as such the said order needs to be set aside. It is also submitted that the Court below passed the impugned order without considering the contention of the petitioner that he made several representations to the respondent authorities to rectify his Date of Birth in his service record as per the directions of this Court in W.A.No.622 of 2018. It is further submitted that the Court below ought to have seen that the respondents did not take any steps to rectify the Date of Birth of the revision petitioner and 3 GSD, J Crl.rc_77_2021 kept the representations pending for more than 11 months only to humiliate him one way or the other as he belongs to Scheduled Caste (Mala) community, thereby committed the offence under Section 4 (1) of the Act. It is further submitted that the Court below ought to have seen that there is a willful and negligent act on the part of the respondents in not considering the representations of the revision petitioner. It is also submitted that the Court below ought to have given an opportunity to the revision petitioner to defend his case and without considering the reasons mentioned by the revision petitioner, dismissed the complaint, which is arbitrary and contrary to law and as such the impugned order needs to be set aside.
6. By filing Counter-affidavit, it is contended by the respondents that initially the revision petitioner was appointed as Draughtsman Grade-II on 29.06.1984 in Panchayat Raj Engineering Department and in the service register, the name of the revision petitioner was initially entered as K.Somulu and it was later changed as K.Shyam Sundar as per A.P. Gazette Notification No.HSE/49, dated 01.03.1990; that his date of entry into service was entered as 29.06.1984 and his date of birth as 18.08.1960; that subsequent promotions were given to the revision petitioner and that the Engineer-in-Chief, Panchayat Raj, Hyderabad, has issued the retirement notification orders vide proceedings dated 01.12.2017 to the petitioner that he will be going to be retired from service on 4 GSD, J Crl.rc_77_2021 attaining the age of 58 years on 31.08.2018 A.N. It is further stated that after more than 28 years from the date of joining into service, for the first time in the year 2018, the revision petitioner made a representation for alteration of his Date of Birth. It is further stated that just five months before his retirement, the petitioner filed W.A.No.622 of 2018 seeking a direction to the respondents to consider the representation of the petitioner, dated 15.03.2018, for alteration of his Date of Birth in the service records as 18.08.1963 instead of 18.08.1960. By its judgment, dated 24.04.2018, this Court allowed W.A.No.622 of 2018, directing the Principal Secretary to the Government, Panchayat Raj and Rural Development Department, to consider the representation dated 15.03.2018 on its own merits within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. It is further stated that pursuant to the judgment of this Court, the Government after careful examination of the matter and keeping in view of the existing rules, decided not to make any alteration/modification at this stage i.e., at the verge of superannuation in view of the orders of the Apex Court in Civil Appeal No.1696 of 2011 dated 09.03.2011 and further informed that the appeal petition of the petitioner to rectify his Date of Birth in his service register as 18.08.1963 instead of 18.08.1960 is not feasible for consideration, vide memo dated 25.06.2018. Subsequently, the Government has re-allotted the revision petitioner from Panchayat 5 GSD, J Crl.rc_77_2021 Raj Engineering Department to Rural Water Supply and Sanitation (now Mission Bhagiratha Department) vide G.O.Ms.No.44, dated 27.07.2018, just one month before his retirement and accordingly, the revision petitioner reported to duty on 30.07.2018. After his joining, retirement notification was also issued by the Rural Water Supply and Sanitation (now Mission Bhagiratha) Department vide proceedings dated 20.08.2018 and the orders were also issued to the revision petitioner that he is going to be retired from the service on attaining the age of (58) years on superannuation on 31.08.2018 A.N. It is further submitted that the petitioner once again filed W.P.No.28382 of 2018 before this Court for modification of date of birth. Along with the Writ Petition, the revision petitioner also filed I.A.No.1 of 2018, seeking a direction to the respondents to dispose of the representation, dated 25.07.2018 with regard to the alteration of Date of Birth in the service register of the petitioner and continue him in service till attaining the age of superannuation treating his date of birth as 18.08.1963 instead of 18.08.1960. By an order, dated 23.08.2018, this Court dismissed the said I.A. and no suspension has been granted. The petitioner was relieved from the service on superannuation on 31.08.2018 A.N. on attaining the age of 58 years. It is also submitted that as seen from the documents submitted by the revision petitioner along with his representation dated 30.04.2019 and 09.07.2019, the revision petitioner has obtained a 6 GSD, J Crl.rc_77_2021 fresh study and Conduct Certificate from the School authorities for Class I to V. However, alteration of Date of Birth in SSC certificate was not done by the authorities concerned as per the fresh study and conduct certificates. The panchanama report of the Tahsildar and Date of Birth certificate were obtained from Medical and Health Department after the retirement notification was issued by the Panchayat Raj Engineering Department. It is further submitted that the Government has examined the proposals of the Engineer-in- chief, Hyderabad, dated 27.05.2020, and observed that the orders which have been issued in Government Memo No.7893/MB.I/A1/2018, dated 26.02.2020, holds good and the proposal has been rejected vide Memo, dated 12.08.2020, and the same was communicated to the petitioner on 21.08.2020. Therefore, prayed to dismiss the Criminal Revision Case.
7. The offences alleged by the revision petitioner against respondents 2 to 10 are under Sections 3 (1) (q) (r) and 4 (1) (2) of the Act. Before proceeding further, it would be appropriate to refer to the said Sections, which are as under:
Section 3 (1) (q) of the Act:
"Whoever not being a member of SC or a ST give any false or frivolous information to any public servant and thereby caused such public servant to use his lawful power to the injury or annoyance of a member of a SC or a ST."7
GSD, J Crl.rc_77_2021 Section 3 (1) (r) of the Act:
"Whoever not being a member of SC or a ST intentionally insults or intimidates with intent to humiliate a member of scheduled caste or scheduled tribe in any place within public view."
Section 4 (1) of the Act:
"Whoever being a public servant but not being a member of a scheduled caste or a scheduled tribe willfully neglects his duties required to be performed by him under this Act and the rules made there under shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than six months but which may extend to one year."
Section 4 (2) of the Act:
2) The duties of public servant referred to in sub-section (1) shall include--(a) to read out to an informant the information given orally, and reduced to writing by the officer in charge of the police station, before taking the signature of the informant;
(b) to register a complaint or a First Information Report under this Act and other relevant provisions and to register it under appropriate sections of this Act;
(c) to furnish a copy of the information so recorded forthwith to the informant;
(d) to record the statement of the victims or witnesses;
(e) to conduct the investigation and file charge sheet in the Special Court or the Exclusive Special Court within a period of sixty days, and to explain the delay if any, in writing;
(f) to correctly prepare, frame and translate any document or electronic record;
8
GSD, J Crl.rc_77_2021
(g) to perform any other duty specified in this Act or the rules made there under:
Provided that the charges in this regard against the public servant shall be booked on the recommendation of an administrative enquiry."
8. As seen from the material available on record, admittedly, the petitioner was appointed as Draughtsman Gr-III on 29.06.1984 in Panchayat Raj Engineering Department. In the Service Register opened when he entered service, his Date of Birth was mentioned as 18.08.1960, as per S.S.C. Certificate produced by him, and the signature and thumb impression of the revision petitioner was obtained at the time of entry in the Service Register, which was also countersigned by the concerned. Subsequently, the revision petitioner was promoted to various categories and lastly he was promoted as Deputy Executive Engineer on 01.02.2004. The record further discloses that the Panchayat Raj Engineering Department was bifurcated into Panchayat Raj Engineering Department and Rural Water Supply and Sanitation (now renamed Mission Bhagiratha) Department and basing on the option exercised by the petitioner, he was allotted to Rural Water Supply and Sanitation Department. Later, the petitioner made a representation to the Government to allot him to Panchayat Raj Department, and the same was rejected. Aggrieved by the said rejection, the petitioner filed O.A.No.6572 of 2009 before the A.P. Administrative Tribunal, 9 GSD, J Crl.rc_77_2021 which was allowed by the Tribunal directing the Government to allot the petitioner to Panchayat Raj Department. Challenging the same, the Government filed W.P.Nos.23206 and 23194 of 2009 before this Court, wherein interim orders have been passed suspending the order passed by the Tribunal. Further, in pursuance of the Vacate Stay Petitions filed by the petitioner the said interim orders were vacated and as such the petitioner continued in Panchayat Raj Department. Again after more than eight years, the petitioner made a request to permit him to withdraw his Original Application filed before the Tribunal and to re-allot him to Rural Water Supply and Sanitation Department and accordingly, this Court passed orders in favour of the petitioner. Pursuant to the said orders, the Government issued G.O.Ms.No.44, dated 27.07.2018, re-allotting the petitioner to R.W.S. & S. (MB) Department just before one month of his retirement. Before his re-allotment to Mission Bhagiratha (RWS&S) Department, the petitioner preferred W.A.No.622 of 2018, seeking a direction to the respondents herein to consider his request for alteration of Date of Birth in his service records as 18.08.1963 instead of 18.08.1960 and the same was allowed. Pursuant to the directions of this Court in W.A.No.622 of 2018, the Government, had examined the matter and decided that the rectification of the Date of Birth of the petitioner in his service register as 18.08.1963 instead of 18.08.1960 is not feasible for consideration at this stage in view of the 10 GSD, J Crl.rc_77_2021 existing rules and also the orders passed by the Apex Court in Civil Appeal No.1696 of 2011 dated 09.03.2011. Again, the petitioner, after joining in RWS&S Department (now Mission Bhagiratha) and just before eight days of his retirement, filed W.P.No.28382 of 2018 before this Court seeking a direction to the Principal Secretary to Government, Rural Water Supply and Sanitation Department, Hyderabad, to dispose of his representation dated 25.07.2018 with regard to alteration of Date of Birth and along with the writ petition he also sought interim relief seeking suspension of the proceedings No.Ser.II(1)/23346/ 2004, dated 01.12.2017 issued by the Principal Secretary to Government, Panchayat Raj and Rural Development Department, pending disposal of the writ petition. By an order, dated 23.08.2018, while disposing of I.A.No.1 of 2018, this Court observed that the Rules governing entry of date of birth and that the petitioner came to this Court few weeks before his retirement and that there is no clerical error in the entry of date of birth, balance of convenience is not in favour of the petitioner. This Court further observed that his continuation in service may have an adverse impact on others in service/aspiring for promotion. Thereafter, the petitioner was relieved from service on attaining the age of superannuation on 31.08.2018 A.N. After his retirement, the petitioner again made a representation dated 05.03.2020 and proposals were submitted by the Engineer-in-Chief, Mission 11 GSD, J Crl.rc_77_2021 Bhagiratha, Hyderabad, vide Lr.No. G2/DEE-VI/MB/605/19, dated 27.05.2020 to the Government, to alter the Date of Birth of the petitioner, which was rejected by the Government vide Memo No.7893/MB.1/A1/2018, dated 12.08.2020.
9. The record further discloses that after receiving the said rejection, the petitioner filed the private complaint on 06.11.2020 before the Court below. The sworn statements of the petitioner and other two witnesses, who were produced by the petitioner, were recorded by the Court below.
10. In order to constitute an offence punishable under Section 3 (1) (q) of the Act, the person, who is not a member of SC or ST, give any false or frivolous information to a public servant to cause injury or annoyance of a member of a SC or a ST. Further, in order to constitute an offence punishable under section 3 (1) (r) of the Act, the person, who is not a member of SC or ST, intentionally insults or intimidates with an intent to humiliate a member of SC or SC in any place within the public view.
11. Nothing has been found in the sworn statements of the petitioner as well as other two witnesses recorded by the Court below, that the respondents 2 to 10 have made false information to the public servant in order to cause injury or annoyance and that they intentionally insulted or humiliated the petitioner at any place 12 GSD, J Crl.rc_77_2021 within the public view as they furnished the information basing on the service register, which was opened at the time of his joining into service. Further, a perusal of the material available on record that basing on the SSC Memo produced by the petitioner only, his date of birth was entered in his service register, therefore, the Court below has rightly held that the ingredients constituting for the offences punishable under Sections 3 (1) (q) and (r) of the Act, are not attracted.
12. Further, the material available on record did not disclose that respondents 2 to 10 failed to perform their duties being public servants as referred to in Section 4 (1) and (2) of the Act. The respondents 2 to 10 have performed their duties by furnishing the required information to the authorities concerned. Therefore, the Court below has rightly dismissed the complaint filed by the petitioner after recording valid and cogent reasons. Hence, I see no illegality or irregularity in the order passed by the trial Court.
13. Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed.
14. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand dismissed.
_____________________ JUSTICE G. SRI DEVI 22.06.2021 gkv/Gsn 13 GSD, J Crl.rc_77_2021