HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE J. SREENIVAS RAO
WRIT PETITION (TR) No.3233 of 2017
ORDER:
The petitioner filed O.A.No.229 of 2015 before Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad, questioning the impugned proceedings C.No.15/A6- 1/OE/2005, DO.No.2348/2013 dated 18.09.2013 issued by respondent No.1 and R.O.No.1125/2013, Rc.No.2044/D1-135/Appl-53/HR/2013, dt.26.12.2013 issued by respondent No.2 and R.O.No.144/2014, Rc.No.76/PR/Revn/W.Z/2014 dated 09.05.2014 issued by respondent No.3 and quash the same.
2. Heard Sri A. Thirupathi Goud, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri M.V.Rama Rao, learned Special Government Pleader for home.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner was appointed as police constable w.e.f on 02.02.1992. While working at Chintapalli Police Station, he was placed under suspension on 03.05.2005 on the allegation that while discharging the roof sentry post on 30.04.2005, he got down at 17.30 hrs., and asked one complainant namely Budhia Naik to bring a cigarette 2 packet, when questioned by ASI as to why he left his sentry post and asked him to go back, the petitioner abused him in filthy language by using unparliamentary words and picked up quarrel with him in drunken state. Thereafter, respondent No.1 issued articles of charges in C.No.15/OE/PR/2005 dated 12.05.2005. Pursuant to the same, petitioner submitted detailed explanation denying the charges leveled against him. Respondent No.1 being not satisfied with the same, ordered regular enquiry and respondent No.1 imposed major punishment of PPI for two years, solely basing on the enquiry officer report dated 31.03.2006 and the same is contrary to law. 3.1. He further contended that respondent No.1 has not furnished the documents which are mentioned along with the annexure-II of the articles of charge dated 12.05.2005 and in spite of his request, the enquiry officer conducted enquiry in a biased manner without giving opportunity to the petitioner to cross-examine the witness and without following the principles of natural justice submitted enquiry report on 31.03.2006 holding that charges leveled against the petitioner are proved. The respondent No.1- disciplinary authority without verifying the documents on 3 record, imposed major punishment through order dated 18.09.2013 only basing on the enquiry report. Aggrieved by the same, petitioner filed appeal and the appellate authority without giving opportunity to the petitioner rejected the appeal without giving any reasons by its order 26.12.2013. Thereafter, petitioner filed revision petition and revisional authority simply rejected the same on 09.05.2014.
3.2. Learned counsel vehemently contended that the appellate authority as well as the revisional authority passed cryptic orders rejecting the appeal and revision without giving opportunity to the petitioner and without appreciating the grounds raised therein and the same is clear violation of principles of natural justice. He further contended that basing on the very same charges Crime No.54 of 2005 was registered against the petitioner for the offence under Section 332 of IPC and in the said case Judicial First Class Magistrate at Devarakonda passed judgment in CC.No.537 of 2007 on 26.07.2013, acquitting the petitioner by giving cogent findings and the said judgment has become final.
43.3. He further contended that the witnesses who are examined in the disciplinary proceedings issued by respondent and the witnesses examined in the Criminal Case i.e., CC.No.537 of 2007 are one and the same and the Criminal Court after considering the depositions of the witnesses and documentary evidence on record held that the petitioner is not guilty for the offence punishable under Section 332 of IPC. The said judgment was produced before respondent No.1, but without considering the same, he imposed major punishment of PPI for two years with effect on future increments and pension and treated the suspension period as not on duty and the same is contrary to law.
4. Per contra, learned Special Government Pleader submits that respondent No.1 after following the due procedure as contemplated under law issued articles of charge on 12.05.2005 and pursuant to the same, the petitioner submitted explanation. After considering the explanation, respondent No.1 ordered regular enquiry by appointing enquiry officer. During the course enquiry, the enquiry officer has given all opportunities to the petitioner to defend his case. The enquiry officer after conducting 5 detailed enquiry submitted enquiry report on 31.03.2006 holding that the charges leveled against the petitioner were proved. Thereafter, respondent No.1 issued notice through memo C.No.15/OE/2006 dated 28.09.2006, by enclosing the enquiry report, directing the petitioner to submit explanation as to why the proposed punishment should not be imposed and after considering the representation dated 10.11.2006 of the petitioner and also after examining the entire records including the enquiry officer report, he rightly passed the impugned order dated 18.09.2013 imposing punishment of PPI for two years with effect on future increments and pension and treated the suspension period as "not on duty" and the same was confirmed by the appellate authority as well as revisional authority on 26.12.2013 and 09.05.2014 respectively.
4.1. He further contended that petitioner has not raised any objection that the respondent No.1 had not furnished the documents along with Articles of Charge. Respondent No.1 furnished all the documents which are mentioned in the Articles of charges while issuing the same on 12.05.2005. Similarly, enquiry officer has followed entire 6 procedure and given all opportunities to the petitioner to defend his case.
4.2. He further contended that in the Criminal Court, petitioner was acquitted only on the ground that eye witnesses turned hostile. Whereas in the disciplinary proceedings the charges leveled against the petitioner were proved and the judgment passed in the Criminal Case is nothing to do with the disciplinary proceedings and there is no illegality or irregularity in the impugned order passed by the respondents.
5. Having considered the rival submissions made by respective parties and upon perusal of the material available on record, it clearly reveals that respondent No.1 suspended the petitioner from services on 03.05.2005 pending enquiry. Thereafter, respondent No.1 issued articles of charges dated 12.05.2005 stating that the petitioner while discharging the roof sentry post on 30.04.2005, he got down at 17.30 hrs., and asked one complainant namely Budhia Naik to bring a cigarette packet when questioned by ASI as to why he left his centry post and asked him to go back, the petitioner abused him in filthy language by using unparliamentary 7 words and pick up quarrel with him in drunken state and not satisfying with the explanation submitted by the petitioner, respondent No.1 ordered regular enquiry by appointing enquiry officer and the enquiry officer has given all opportunities to the petitioner to defend his case and recorded the statement of respective witness who are examined and also given opportunity to the petitioner to cross examine the witness and thereafter submitted report holding that the charges leveled against the petitioner were proved. Respondent No.1 issued show cause notice directing the petitioner to submit his explanation as to why the proposed punishment should not be imposed by furnishing the enquiry report through memo dated 28.09.2006. Thereafter, passed the impugned order on 18.09.2003 imposing the punishment of PPI for two years with effect on future increments and pension and treated the suspension period from 03.05.2005 to 02.02.2006 as "not on duty". Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner filed appeal before appellate authority and the same was rejected on 26.12.2013 and further the petitioner filed revision before revisional authority and the same was also dismissed on 09.05.2014 upholding the punishment order passed by respondent No.1.
8
6. It is very much relevant to mention here that in the counter affidavit respondents specifically pleaded that they have furnished all the documents to the petitioner which are mentioned in the articles of charge dated 12.05.2005. Hence the contention of the petitioner that the documents were not furnished to the petitioner while issuing articles of charge on 12.05.2005 is not tenable under law in the absence of any denial or rebuttal evidence to that effect. In so far as other ground raised by learned counsel for the petitioner that during the course of enquiry, enquiry officer has not given opportunity to cross examine the witnesses is also not tenable under law on the sole ground that the enquiry report clearly reveals that the enquiry officer during the course of enquiry has given all opportunities to the petitioner including cross examining the witnesses.
7. In so far as the other ground raised by the petitioner that the charges leveled against the petitioner in the disciplinary proceedings as well as in the criminal case are one and same and the learned JFCM passed judgment in CC.No.537 of 2007 acquitting the petitioner and the disciplinary authority without taking into consideration of 9 the same imposed major punishment is concerned, after going through the judgment passed in CC.No.537 of 2007 dated 26.07.2013, it reveals that the main eye witnesses have not supported the prosecution and they turned hostile and due to the peculiar circumstances, the Criminal Court has acquitted the petitioner for the said offences. It is settled proposition of law that, mere acquittal in a criminal case has no relevance or bearing on disciplinary proceedings. The standard of proof in both the cases is different and the proceedings operate in different fields and different objectives. In the disciplinary proceedings the respondents proved the charges leveled against the petitioner. There is no procedural irregularity or any violation of the principles of natural justice in the domestic enquiry conducted by the respondents.
8. The petitioner has committed grievous mistake while discharging his services and the domestic enquiry conducted by respondent is valid and the disciplinary authority after considering the explanation submitted by the petitioner rightly imposed the punishment and same was confirmed by the appellate authority and revisional authority 26.12.2013 and 09.05.2014 respectively. This 10 Court do not find any illegality or irregularity in the impugned order dated 18.09.2013 passed by respondent No.1 to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of Constitution of India.
9. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed. No costs.
As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed.
_____________________________ JUSTICE J. SREENIVAS RAO September, 2023 PSW