THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SARATH
WRIT PETITION No.2476 of 2023
ORDER:
1. Heard Sri N.Ramesh, Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri M.V.Rama Rao, Learned Special Government Pleader for Home, appearing for the respondents.
2. The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitsthat the petitioner was enrolled as Home Guard vide Proceedings dated 20.04.2006 and working under the control of the respondent No.4. While it being so the petitioner was kept under suspension vide orders in C.No.79/RI-HGO/JGL/2020 dated 16.04.2020 on account of registration of a crime No.99/2020 under Sections 290, 504, 506 IPC and Sections 3 (1) (r) (s) and 3 (2) (Va) of SCs and STs PoA 2 SK,J W.P.No.2476 of 2023 Amendment Act, 2015 of Dharmapuri P.S., on 09.04.2020.
3. The learned Counsel for the petitioner further submits that the petitioner was acquitted in the Criminal Case on 21.06.2022 in S.C.No.142 of 2021 on the file of Special Sessions Judge for trial of offences under SCs & STs (PoA) Act-cum-III Additional Sessions Judge, Hyderabad. After acquittal of the petitioner in the criminal case, surprisingly the Deputy Superintendent of Police submitted a report stating that the petitioner abused a SC-community Woman and requested to take disciplinary action against the petitioner. The Deputy Superintendent of Police conducted enquiry behind and back of the petitioner and basing on the said report a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner on 29.08.2022 asking him to submit explanation and accordingly the petitioner 3 SK,J W.P.No.2476 of 2023 submitted his explanation. The Disciplinary Committee without considering the explanation submitted by the petitioner, recommended for removal of the petitioner from service and accordingly basing on the directions of the committee the petitioner was removed from service vide proceedings in C.No.271/RI/HG/JGL/ 2022 (D.No.06./2022) dated 22.09.2022.
4. The learned Counsel for the petitioner further submitted that when the petitioner was acquitted in the Criminal case, he has to be reinstated into service, but the respondents passed the impugned removal order for same set of facts of criminal case and requested to allow the writ petition.
5. The learned Counsel for the petitioner in support of his contention relied on the following judgment: 4
SK,J W.P.No.2476 of 2023
1. P.Satyanarayana Vs. the Government of Andhra Pradesh1,
6. The learned Special Government Pleader submitted that the Enquiry Officer submitted his report to the then Superintendent of police Jagtial District vide C.No.47/SB/JGL/2022 dated 24.06.2022 and taking into account of the said report the respondents have passed the present impugned orders.
7. The learned Special Government Pleader further submits that the Disciplinary Committee met on 20.09.2022 and after perusing the record it has come to the conclusion that the petitioner has indulged in misconduct and therefore the continuation of the petitioner in the Home Guard Organization will bring disrepute, tarnish the image of the Home Guard 1 Unreported Judgment in WP (TR) No.173 of 2017 of erstwhile High Court of A.P 5 SK,J W.P.No.2476 of 2023 Organization and also encourage other Home Guards to resort to such misconduct and recommended to remove the petitioner from the rolls of Home Guard Organization.
8. The learned Special Government Pleader further submits that the Departmental proceedings are different and distinct from the Criminal cases. The degree of proof which is necessary to order a convict is different from the degree of proof necessary to record the commisiosn of delinquency. In a Departmental enquiry the penalty can be imposed on the delinquent officer on a finding recorded on the basis of preponderance of probability.
9. The learned Special Government Pleader further submits that the charge leveled against the petitioner was proved, as such the petitioner is not entitled to 6 SK,J W.P.No.2476 of 2023 the relief sought for in the writ petition and requested to dismiss the writ petition.
10. The learned Special Government Pleader for Home relied on the following citations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court:
2. Noida Entrepreneurs Association Vs. Noida and others2.
3. Depot Manager, A.P.State Road Transport Corporation Vs. Mohd.Yiousuf Miya and others3
11. After hearing both sides and on perusing the record this Court is of the considered view that the petitioner while working as Home Guard involved in a criminal case registered under Sections 290, 504, 506 IPC and Sections 3 (1) (r) (s) and 3 (2) (Va) of SCs and STs PoA Amendment Act, 2015 of Dharmapuri Police Station and subsequently he was acquitted from the said Criminal case in Sessions Case No.142 of 2021 on
2. (2007) 10 SCC 385 3 (1997) 2 SCC 699 7 SK,J W.P.No.2476 of 2023 the file of III-Additional Sessions Judge, Hyderabad on 21.06.2022.
12. The respondents have issued 1st Show-cause notice on 16.04.2020 and the petitioner submitted his explanation 07.09.2020 and thereafter the petitioner was acquitted in the criminal case on 21.06.2022. After acquittal of the petitioner in the criminal case, the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Jagtial conducted enquiry and submitted his report to the Superintendent of Police on 24.06.2022 and basing the said report the respondents have issued 2nd Show-cause notice to the petitioner on 29.08.2022 and against the same the petitioner submitted his explanation on 06.09.2022 and the impugned order of removal was passed on 22.09.2022.
13. As per the record there is no discussion about the explanation offered by the petitioner. The charges 8 SK,J W.P.No.2476 of 2023 leveled against the petitioner was involvement in a criminal case and there was no further allegation against him. The petitioner stated in his explanation that the criminal case was ended in acquittal and the same has became final as no appeal has been preferred by the State and the petitioner was discharged from the charges levelled against him. The committee sticks to the allegations leveled against the petitioner i.e. his involvement in a criminal case. There is no independent enquiry conducted on the nature of crime and involvement of the petitioner. Except referring to the report of Home-Guards Disciplinary Committee there is no discussion in the impugned order of removal of the petitioner from service as Home Guard.
14. In the judgment relied by the learned Counsel for the petitioner this Court in P.Satyanayrana Vs 9 SK,J W.P.No.2476 of 2023 The Government of Andhra Pradesh and others (Supra1), held in similarly situated set of facts that the procedure as required was not followed as held by the Division Bench of this Court in State of Andhra Pradesh Vs. P.Prasad Rao4 the order impugned in that case was set aside.
15. The judgments relied on by the learned Special Government Pleader for Home do not apply to the instant case as the respondents have not followed the procedure as law laid down by the Division Bench of this Court with regard to disciplinary proceedings in respect of Home Guards in State of Andhra Pradesh vs P.Prasad Rao (supra 4).
16. The respondents have not conducted proper enquiry before imposing punishment of removal of the petitioner from service. In the instant case the Deputy 4 2012(1) ALD 76 (DB) 10 SK,J W.P.No.2476 of 2023 Superintendent of Police conducted enquiry behind and back of the petitioner and submitted his report after acquittal of the petitioner in the criminal case and basing on the said report the disciplinary authorities have issued impugned order of removal against the petitioner.
17. In view of the law laid down by the Division Bench of this Court in State of Andhra Pradesh Vs. P.Prasad Rao (supra 4) and consequential judgments, the impugned order is liable to be set aside.
18. Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed by setting aside the impugned order of removal of the petitioner from service issued in Proc.No.C.No271/RI/HG/JGL/2022 (D.No06/2022) dated 22.09.2022 by the respondent No.4 and the respondents are directed to reinstate the petitioner into service as Home Guard. However, the petitioner is 11 SK,J W.P.No.2476 of 2023 not entitled to claim wages for the period he was out of service. There shall be no order as to costs.
19. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this Writ petition shall stand closed.
_____________________ JUSTICE K.SARATH, Date: 13.04.2023 trr