1 RRN,J
WP No.45866 of 2016
*THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO
+W.P. No.45866 OF 2016
% 16-12-2022
#Mohd. Afzal Ali
....petitioner
Vs.
$ State of Telangana, rep. by its Principal Secretary, Home Department,
Secretariat , Hyderabad and 4 others
.... Respondents
!Counsel for the petitioner : MD. Ajmal Ahmed
Counsel for the Respondents : G.P for Services-II
<Gist :
>Head Note:
? Cases referred:
2 RRN,J
WP No.45866 of 2016
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
HYDERABAD
****
WP. No.45866 OF 2016
Between:
Mohd. Afzal Ali
....petitioner
Vs.
$ State of Telangana, rep. by its Principal Secretary, Home Department,
Secretariat , Hyderabad and 4 others
... Respondents
ORDER PRONOUNCED ON: 16.12.2022
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO
1. Whether Reporters of Local newspapers
may be allowed to see the Judgments? : Yes
2. Whether the copies of judgment may be
Marked to Law Reporters/Journals? : Yes
3. Whether His Lordship wishes to
see the fair copy of the Judgment? : Yes
_____________________________________
NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO, J
3 RRN,J
WP No.45866 of 2016
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO
WRIT PETITION NO.45866 of 2016
ORDER:
This Writ Petition is filed for the following relief:
"....to issue an appropriate Writ or order or direction more in the nature of a Writ of Mandamus praying that this Hon'ble Court to declare the action of the respondent No.2 herein in passing impugned proceedings vide L Dis.No.709/A3/PR/2015 dt.28-01-2016 confirming the order of respondent No.4 herein as being illegal, arbitrary, unjust and in violation of article 14, 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents herein to reinstate the petitioner as Police Constable in appropriate Police Station."
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that while the petitioner was working as Police Constable in Chennur 4 RRN,J WP No.45866 of 2016 Police Station, he was discharging the duties on night patrolling on 10.07.2012/11.07.2012 in Beat-I area along with the home guard Sri Mudassir. The said home guard allegedly reported to the Station House Officer of Chennur Police Station on 14.07.2012 stating that while they were on duty on the night of 10.07.2012/11.07.2012, they had stopped a Bolero jeep laden with illicit timber and that the owner of the Jeep Sammireddy had allegedly paid the petitioner a sum of Rs. 26,000/- for letting him off. Later, the said home guard alleged that the petitioner offered him Rs. 10,000/- and when he refused to accept it, the petitioner has allegedly forcibly put the amount into his pocket.
2.1. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the Circle Inspector, Chennur, had recorded the statements of the Home Guard i.e PW.3, the said Sammireddy i.e PW.1 and others and sent a report to the Superintendent of Police, Adilabad, vide C.No.89/N1/12 dated. 6-9-2012. Upon the report of the Circle Inspector of Police, the Superintendent of Police, Adilabad, had placed the petitioner under suspension and initiated disciplinary proceedings vide memorandum of charge 5 RRN,J WP No.45866 of 2016 C.No.20/PR/A6/2012 dt.12.11.2013 and also ordered oral enquiry while appointing the Circle Inspector of Police, Luxettipet vide order dt.07.01.2014 and subsequently, the said Cricle Inspector of Police submitted his report vide C.No. 20/PR/A6/2012-14 dt.24-10-2014 holding the article of charges against the petitioner as proved. The Superintendent of Police, Adilabad, agreeing with the Inquiry Officer, awarded a penalty of dismissal from service and the period of suspension w.e.f. 02.02.2013 to 01.04.2013 was directed to be treated as "not on duty" vide C.No. 20/PR/A6/2012-15 dt.11.09.2015. 2.2. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that aggrieved by the action of the Disciplinary Authority, the petitioner preferred an appeal under rule 33(i)(ii) of A.P.C.S.(CC&A) Rules before the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Karimnagar range, on the ground that the Station House Officer, Chennur, had cooked up a story to frame the petitioner as he had borne a grudge against the petitioner who had refused to collect the mamools and bring it to the Station House Office among other grounds. The said appeal was rejected on 27-10-2015 vide C.No.133/APP/A/2015 and confirmed the 6 RRN,J WP No.45866 of 2016 order of the dismissal passed by the Disciplinary Authority. Against the same, the petitioner preferred a revision before Deputy Inspector General of Police, Warangal Range, North Zone, and the same was rejected on 28.01.2016. 2.3 Learned counsel for the petitioner further contended that the Home Guard i.e PW.3 had reported about the alleged incident to the Inspector three days later without any explanation for the delay and that during preliminary enquiry the said Sammireddy i.e PW.1 was forced to depose against the petitioner by the Circle Inspector of Police, Luxettipet, the Enquiry Officer, by threatening that a crime would be registered against him and he would be sent to jail if he changes his statement.
3. Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that all the allegations made by the petitioner are false and they pleaded that the constable freed the illegal teak wood-loaded vehicle by accepting of Rs.26,000/- and out of which Rs.10,000/- was given to a Home Guard and also pleaded that not satisfied with the reply submitted by the petitioner, the authority conducted an overall enquiry against the charged 7 RRN,J WP No.45866 of 2016 officer under Rule 20 of A.P.C.S.(CC&A) Rules, 1991 (Under Telangana Adaptation Orders) 2016 giving him all reasonable opportunities and examined 8 witnesses and exhibited 11 documents on behalf of the prosecution and submitted his findings duly holding the charge as proved under G.O.Ms. No.458 GA (SCR-C) Department dt.22.09.2009 and the petitioner is awarded a penalty of dismissal from service and the period of suspension w.e.f. 2-2-2013 to 1-4-2013 is treated as "Not on duty" vide office proceedings dt.11.09.2015.
4. Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that there is no violation of CCA rules in conducting the enquiry and imposing the penalty on the petitioner and his version in the affidavit is false and baseless. The punishment is in proportion to act committed by the petitioner.
5. Heard the counsel for the petitioner and the respondent. Perused the record.
6. It is to be noted that PW.1 who is the owner of the Jeep in his statement categorically stated that "The Home Guard who was with Afzal constable warned me don't tell this 8 RRN,J WP No.45866 of 2016 matter anyone." Whereas it is upon the complaint of PW.3 that the Departmental enquiry was initiated against the petitioner and the Enquiry Officer ignored the above statement of PW.1 and proceeded only against the petitioner, which clearly indicates lacunas in the enquiry.
7. A careful perusal of the impugned order under challenge goes to show that the revision was rejected on the sole ground that PW.3 i.e. Sri Md. Mudassir, Home Guard, who performed beat duty along with the petitioner stated that the petitioner had kept Rs.10,000/- forcibly in his pocket, but he refused to accept the amount. A perusal of the statement of PW.3 Md Mudassir, Home Guard, who has given a complaint against the petitioner, states that the petitioner had taken some amount from PW.1 and despite refusal by PW.3, petitioner had forcibly kept an amount of Rs.10,000/- in the pocket of PW.3.
8. If the above version of PW.3 is to be considered, and if PW.3 is so sincere and honest, he would have handed over the said amount to the Department by showing his bona fides, whereas there is no such aspect of recovery of the said amount. Even as per cross-examination PW.3 admitted that he did not 9 RRN,J WP No.45866 of 2016 see the petitioner taking the money. Moreover, there is delay of three days in reporting the alleged incident to the higher ups. But, the delay is not explained in any manner. These circumstances clearly goes to show that there is no substantiation and reliability in the statements of the witnesses. As such, it cannot be concluded that the petitioner had committed the alleged misconduct.
9. In view of inconsistency in the version of witnesses, this court is of the considered view that the punishment awarded by the respondents is not tenable as they have failed to prove the guilt/misconduct of the petitioner beyond all reasonable doubt. As such, the proceedings vide L Dis.No.709/A3/PR/2015 dt.28-01-2016 is set aside and the respondents are directed to re-reinstate the petitioner as Police Constable and award any lesser punishment other than dismissal from service in accordance with the law. However, it is made clear that the petitioner is not entitled to claim back wages and seniority pertaining to the termination period.
10. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is partly allowed with the above observations. No order as to costs.
10 RRN,J
WP No.45866 of 2016
As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed __________________________________ NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO, J Date: 16.12.2022 bdr