THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE P.MADHAVI DEVI
W.P.No. 43393 of 2022
ORDER:
In this writ petition, the petitioner is challenging the Writ of Certiorari to call for the records relating to the impugned proceedings in Memorandum PR.No.B1/03/Cyb/2022, dated 25.04.2022 initiated by the respondent No.2 under Rule 20 of the Telangana State Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1991, as bad, illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the rules as laid down in Telangana State Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1991 and consequently to set aside the same and to pass such other order or orders.
2. Brief facts leading to the filing of the present writ petition are that the petitioner is working as Inspector of Police in P.S.Narsingi. He was placed under suspension vide orders dated 23.10.2021 on the allegations that the petitioner being Station House Officer, P.S.Narsingi, was found to have resorted to excessive use of law and has exhibited over enthusiasm and misused his powers by influencing the Investigating Officer in adding Sections 307 and 434 of IPC on the strength of two eye 2 PMD,J W.P.No. 43393 of 2022 witnesses and subsequently, arrested one Y.Bhaskar Rao, the Manager of M/s.One and Cadol Projects in haste and that while adding the grave Sections of 307, 434 of IPC in FIR No.175 of 2021, the writ petitioner and his other subordinate did not conduct proper investigation. Subsequently, the petitioner was reinstated into service and allotted to CCS, Hyderabad Commissionerate. Thereafter, the respondent No.2 issued the impugned proceedings in Memorandum PR.No.B1/03/ Cyb/2022, dated 25.04.2022, proposing to hold an enquiry against the petitioner and the Sub Inspector of Police, Sri.R.Laxman in accordance with the procedure laid down in Rule 20 of the Telangana State Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1991. Challenging the same, the present writ petition has been filed.
3. Brief facts leading to the filing of the present writ petition are that while the petitioner was working as a Station House Officer, P.S.Narsingi, on 20.02.2021 at about 8 p.m., a complaint was received from one Mr.S.Vishwanadha Raju, aged 73 years, R/o.Gajularamaram Village, Quthbullapur Mandal- Medchal Malkajgiri District. The contents of the complaint were that one J.Jagannath Reddy, was the Principal Pattedar of the 3 PMD,J W.P.No. 43393 of 2022 land admeasuring 33 acres of land in Sy.No.885 (old), Sy.No.696 (new) in Janwada Village of Shankarpally Mandal under Narsingi P.S., and he has given GPA for Acs.33-00gts., to one Ramchandra Singh vide document No.2546/1990 and alienated the subject property and that in the year 1990, the complainant Mr.S.Vishwanadha Raju purchased land to the extent of Ac.4-00 gts., in Sy.No.696 (old Sy.No.885) from out of the above Ac.33-00 gts., from the Pattedar through the registered GPA holder, Ramachandra Singh vide document No.15038/1990 and erected a room in the year 1998 and he used to stay there whenever he was visiting the land. Subsequently, one person by name Shankar, purchased another Ac.4-00gts., of land from out of above Ac.33-00gts., vide document No.3336/1991 and had requested the complainant to look after the Ac.4-00 gts., in the year 2015 by giving him a GPA. In the meantime, after the demise of Jagannath Reddy, his legal heirs namely Dilip Reddy, Pradeep Reddy, Krishna Kumari and Kiran Reddy, despite knowing that their father executed registered GPA for the entire Ac.33-00 gts., to Ramachandra Singh, sold the same Ac.33-00 gts., including the subject property of 8 Acres duly suppressing the facts through Agreement-cum-GPA vide document No.6242/2005 to Sriven 4 PMD,J W.P.No. 43393 of 2022 Constructions Company, represented by Dr.C.Murali Mohan, who in turn, executed sale deeds in the year 2007 in favour of one Ravinder Reddy and his family. The complaint stated that Mr.Ravinder Reddy, his Manger, Bhaskar Rao and his henchmen have been threatening the complainant and trying to trespass into his land since 2018 and have criminally trespassed into his land on 20.02.2021 and started demolishing the room with a JCB vehicle without number plate while he was in the room. He stated that the said vehicle was driven by one Nagani Srikanth while a Tractor bearing No. TS 07UJ 0915 was driven by Chittepu Vikram Reddy and they all threatened him to vacate the land and have forcibly demolished the room and taken away his agriculture tools and threatened him with dire consequences. It was further stated that the accused have created documents through double registration with an intention to grab his land including Ac.33-00 guntas. Sri Sridhar, Admin SI of Narsingi P.S., registered his complaint as Cr.No.175/2021, under Sections 420, 447, 427 and 506 r/w 34 IPC and handed over the CD file to Sri R.Laxman, Sector SI for investigation. It is submitted that Sri Viswanadha Raju, Complainant had earlier filed three complaints dated 11.10.2019, 06.11.2019 and 13.02.2021 in Narsingi P.S., (two 5 PMD,J W.P.No. 43393 of 2022 complaints were before the petitioner has taken charge as SHO, Narsingi PS.,). It is stated that in all the three complaints, he has mentioned that he has been enjoying the peaceful possession of 8 Acres of land falling in Sy.No.885 (old) and 696 (new) of Janwada Village and he has been facing threat to his life and property from Mr.Ravinder Reddy and others. Sri R.Laxman, SI, visited the scene of offence and did preliminary investigation and recorded the statements of independent eye witnesses under Section 161 Cr.P.C. in Part-II CD and as per CD file and copies of the documents, certain facts came to light which are ennumerated by the petitioner in his affidavit in Paragraphs 9 and 10 of the writ petition. It is stated that the complainant, in his complaint has clearly mentioned that demolition process was commenced while he was physically available in the room and that he was also stated the same in Part-II CD statement and no effort was made to improve the statement as there was no need to do so. It is submitted that the Investigation Officer of the case, Sri Laxman, Sector SI, discussed with all the concerned Officers and on their instructions, met the Legal Adviser, C.P. Office and on his advice, he decided to add Sections 307 and 434 of IPC to the case with the concurrences of the ACP, DCP and Commissioner 6 PMD,J W.P.No. 43393 of 2022 of Police. It is stated that the Investigation Officer produced the accused before the Court with a remand report and the Court after considering the remand report, remanded the accused to judicial custody. It is submitted that the case was registered on 20.02.2021 and the accused was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 29.02.2021 and the then CP entrusted investigation of the case to ACP Madhapur and CD was sent to the ACP on 06.03.2021. It is submitted that the criminal case only against Mr.B.Ravinder Reddy and Mr.Bhaskara Rao was quashed on 01.04.2021. It is submitted that the CD file has been with the ACP only from 06.03.2021, though he was investigating the case right from 06.03.2021 and despite knowing all the facts, circumstances, discussions and concurrences given by the officers relating to the case right from registration of the case including adding Sections 307 and 434 of IPC, he sent the report on 23.10.2021 i.e., after a long lapse of more than 7½ months and that too, after the transfer of the then Commissioner of Police, Cyberabad and at no point of time, the ACP or DCP issued any memo to the petitioner calling for any explanation on any lapses. It is submitted that the petitioner has neither exhibited any misconduct nor brought any influence or pressure on the Investigation Officer to add 7 PMD,J W.P.No. 43393 of 2022 Sections 307 and 434 of IPC and that the Investigation Officer added Sections 307 and 434 of IPC as per the merits of the statements of the witnesses, investigation done by him and also on the instructions of the higher officers and the advice tendered by the legal adviser. It is stated that the petitioner has been working sincerely without any complaints and in fact, he had earned nearly 200 awards for his meritorious service. It is submitted that in response to the suspension order, the petitioner has submitted his explanation dated 23.02.2022 and thereafter, the suspension order was revoked vide orders dated 26.02.2022, but immediately thereafter, the impugned proceedings were issued which affects not only his rights but also his promotion and other career benefits. It is submitted that the writ petitioner categorically denied the imputations made against him and submitted that the investigation was done under the supervision of his higher authorities and though the accused have initiated proceedings only subsequent to transfer of the then Commissioner, further the DCP and ACP remains same under whose supervision only the investigation was conducted and provisions of under Section 307 was added, but the said officers have given adverse remarks against the petitioner without raising any objections at the time of adding 8 PMD,J W.P.No. 43393 of 2022 the said provisions by the Investigation Officer. It is further submitted that the proceedings were initiated merely on the ground that the criminal petition has been quashed against Mr.Ravinder Reddy and Mr.Bhaskar Rao and not against other accused. It is submitted that counter complaint was also taken and a case was registered against Sri.Viswanadha Raju, who is the complainant in Cr.No.175 of 2021. It is thus submitted that there are no merits in the imputations made in the impugned proceedings issued by the respondent No.2 and the same is contrary to the TSCS (CC&A) Rules, 1991 and he therefore sought to set aside of the impugned proceedings dated 25.04.2022 and to pass such other order or orders.
4. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner while reiterating the above averments, submitted that the allegations in the charge memo are vague without giving any details and therefore, any enquiry with such vague allegations will cause grave injustice to the petitioner. It is submitted that the FIR was registered in February, 2021 while the charge memo was issued in the year 2022. It is further submitted that in June, 2021 there was a survey conducted by the Revenue Officials in respect of the subject land. It is submitted that the 9 PMD,J W.P.No. 43393 of 2022 petitioner is not the Investigation Officer, but he is only an SHO and therefore, he has not directly involved in the investigation of the case and therefore, the imputations made against him are not sustainable. He placed reliance upon the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Anant.R.Kulakarni Vs. Y.P.Educational Society and Others 1, for the proposition that it is not permissible to hold an enquiry on vague charges, as the same do not give a clear picture to the delinquent to make out an effective defence as he will be unaware of the exact nature of the allegations against him, and what kind of defence he should put up for rebuttal thereof. It is also held that where the charge sheet is accompanied by the statement of facts and the allegations are not specific in the charge sheet, but are crystal clear from the statement of facts, in such a situation, as both constitute the same document, it cannot be held that as the charges were not specific, definite and clear, the enquiry stood vitiated. Thus, nowhere should a delinquent be served a charge sheet, without providing to him, a clear, specific and definite description of the charges against him. He submitted that in this case, since the charges are not clear and is not accompanied by a statement of 1 (2013) 6 SCC 515 10 PMD,J W.P.No. 43393 of 2022 facts, the enquiry on the basis of such vague charges, is not justifiable nor is it sustainable.
5. Learned Special Government Pleader for Home, however, submitted that a joint charge memo was issued to the petitioner as well as the Sub Inspector of Police, R.Laxman, who conducted investigation and the petitioner has submitted his explanation. He submitted that from the said reply, it is very clear that the petitioner has understood the charges against him and therefore, it cannot be said that charge memo is vague and unclear. It is submitted that the judgment cited by the learned senior counsel is not applicable. He further relied upon the allegations made in the charge memo dated 25.04.2022.
6. Having regard to the rival contentions and the material on record, this Court finds that the petitioner was earlier placed under suspension vide memo dated 23.10.2021, which was subsequently revoked and he was again placed under suspension vide proceedings dated 25.04.2022. While the first charge is that the petitioner has exhibited grave misconduct and misused his official powers for issuing illegal orders and influencing the Sector SI Sri R.Laxman to do a favour, the second charge is that the High Court has quashed 11 PMD,J W.P.No. 43393 of 2022 the FIR No.175/2021 against the sections of law 307, 434, 420, 447, 427 and 506 read with 34 IPC in Criminal Petition No.1554 of 2021 and therefore, it is a bad remark on the Department. From these two charges, it does not come out as to how the petitioner has influenced or pressurized the Sector SI Sri R.Laxman to do a favour to the complainant. As seen from the contents of the complaint, the complainant himself has stated that there is a threat to his life. He also affirmed the said contention in the statement recorded by the SI. When such is the case, adding Sections 307 and 434 of IPC by the Sector SI in the FIR, may not be without any basis. Further, the petitioner being the SHO, was not involved in the investigation of the case. In such circumstances, it cannot be said that the petitioner is responsible for adding of Sections 307 and 434 of IPC in the FIR and particularly when the same is done with the approval of the higher authorities such as ACP and DCP of the said P.S.Narsingi. In view of the same, the contentions of the petitioner that the charges against the petitioner are vague, is substantiated. Further, as seen from the memo filed for adding the Sections 307 and 434 of IPC to the FIR, it was done on the basis of the statement of the complainant and other witnesses. Further, from the copy of the letter submitted by the petitioner 12 PMD,J W.P.No. 43393 of 2022 on 01.03.2021, it is also noticed that the petitioner himself has requested to transfer the case to CCS or to any superior officer as there was pressure and undue influence brought in by the accused against the arrest of A5 and A6.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner had further relied upon the G.O.Rt.No.332, dated 08.07.2021 wherein the Government has decided to file an SLP against the order of High Court quashing the FIR. Therefore, he submitted that on one hand, the respondents have issued a charge memo to the petitioner stating that there is dereliction of duty on his part in pressurizing the Sector SI to include the Sections 307 and 434 of IPC and on the other hand, the respondents are taking steps to file an SLP before the Hon'ble Supreme Court against the order of High Court. Therefore, he submitted that adding of Sections 307 and 434 of IPC is purely on the basis of the statements given by the complainant as well as other eye witnesses and alleging that the petitioner has expressed over enthusiasm in registering the case and adding the Sections 307 and 434 of IPC is without any basis and that he was in no way concerned with the investigation.
13
PMD,J W.P.No. 43393 of 2022
8. In view of the above facts and circumstances, this Court is of the opinion that the charges in the charge memo dated 25.04.2022 are vague and thereby putting the petitioner at a disadvantage to counter the same with any contentions to the contrary.
9(i) The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Surath Chandra Chakrabarty Vs. State of West Bengal 2, has considered similar issue and has held as under:
We have no manner of doubt that the appellant was denied a proper and reasonable opportunity of defending himself by reason of the charges being altogether vague and indefinite and the statement of allegations containing the material facts and particulars not having been supplied to him. In this situation, for the above reason alone, the Trial Judge was fully justified in decreeing the suit.
(ii) Further in the case of Government of A.P. and Others Vs. A.Venkata Ryudu 3, the Hon'ble Supreme Court reiterated that the charge sheet should not be vague but should be specific.
(iii) In the case of Anant.R.Kulakarni (cited supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court has further explained the concept of 2 1970 (3) SCC 548 3 (2007) 1 SCC 338 14 PMD,J W.P.No. 43393 of 2022 Principles of Natural Justice in Departmental Proceedings by observing as under:
15. In Surath Chandra Chakrabarty v. State of W.B. [(1970) 3 SCC 548 : AIR 1971 SC 752] this Court held, that it is not permissible to hold an enquiry on vague charges, as the same do not give a clear picture to the delinquent to make out an effective defence as he will be unaware of the exact nature of the allegations against him, and what kind of defence he should put up for rebuttal thereof. The Court observed as under : (SCC p. 553, para 5) "5. ... The grounds on which it is proposed to take action have to be reduced to the form of a definite charge or charges which have to be communicated to the person charged together with a statement of the allegations on which each charge is based and any other circumstance which it is proposed to be taken into consideration in passing orders has also to be stated. This rule embodies a principle which is one of the specific contents of a reasonable or adequate opportunity for defending oneself. If a person is not told clearly and definitely what the allegations are on which the charges preferred against him are founded, he cannot possibly, by projecting his own imagination, discover all the facts and circumstances that may be in the contemplation of the authorities to be established against him."
(emphasis supplied)
16. Where the charge-sheet is accompanied by the statement of facts and the allegations are not specific in the charge-sheet, but are crystal clear from the statement of facts, in such a situation, as both constitute the same document, it cannot be held that as the charges were not specific, definite and clear, the enquiry stood vitiated. Thus, nowhere should a delinquent be served a charge-sheet, without providing to him, a clear, specific and definite description of the charge against him. When statement of allegations are not served with the charge-sheet, the enquiry stands vitiated, as having been conducted in violation of the principles of natural justice. The evidence adduced should not be perfunctory; even if the delinquent does not take the defence of, or make a protest that the charges are vague, that does not save the enquiry from being vitiated, for the reason that there must be fair play in action, particularly in respect of an order involving adverse or penal consequences. What is required to be examined is whether the delinquent knew the nature of accusation. The charges should be specific, definite and giving details of the incident which formed the basis of charges and no enquiry can be sustained on vague charges. (Vide State of A.P. v. S. Sree Rama Rao [AIR 1963 SC 1723] , Sawai Singh v. State of Rajasthan [(1986) 3 SCC 454 : 1986 SCC (L&S) 662 : AIR 1986 SC 995] , U.P. SRTC v. Ram Chandra Yadav [(2000) 9 SCC 327 : 2001 SCC (L&S) 79 : AIR 2000 SC 3596] , Union of India v. Gyan Chand 15 PMD,J W.P.No. 43393 of 2022 Chattar [(2009) 12 SCC 78 : (2010) 1 SCC (L&S) 129] and Anil Gilurker v. Bilaspur Raipur Kshetriya Gramin Bank [(2011) 14 SCC 379 : (2012) 2 SCC (L&S) 926] .)
17. The purpose of holding an enquiry against any person is not only with a view to establish the charges levelled against him or to impose a penalty, but is also conducted with the object of such an enquiry recording the truth of the matter, and in that sense, the outcome of an enquiry may either result in establishing or vindicating his stand, and hence result in his exoneration. Therefore, fair action on the part of the authority concerned is a paramount necessity.
10. Therefore, applying the above rationale to the facts of this case, it is clear that the impugned charge memo is in violation of principles of natural justice and hence unsustainable. The impugned order is accordingly set aside.
11. Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.
12. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this writ petition, shall stand closed.
____________________________ JUSTICE P.MADHAVI DEVI Date: 14.09.2023 bak 16 PMD,J W.P.No. 43393 of 2022 4 THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE P.MADHAVI DEVI W.P.No. 43393 of 2022 Dated: 14.09.2023 bak