Telangana High Court
The Central Industrial Security Force vs G.G. Namdev Rao on 16 April, 2024
Author: Abhinand Kumar Shavili
Bench: Abhinand Kumar Shavili
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI
AND
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO
WRIT APPEAL No.247 of 2024
JUDGMENT:
(Per the Hon'ble Sri Justice Abhinand Kumar Shavili) Aggrieved by the order dated 24.07.2023 passed in W.P.No.28374 of 2018 by the learned Single Judge, the present writ appeal has been filed.
2. Heard Sri K.Arvind Kumar, learned Standing Counsel for Central Government appearing for the appellants and Sri K.Thomas George, learned counsel appearing for the sole respondent.
3. It is the case of the appellants that the respondent was working as Constable in CSIF unit RSTPS, Ramagundam. On the intervening night of 17/18.06.2016, the respondent has trespassed into his colleague's house and molested his colleague's wife. The disciplinary authority has construed the same as misconduct and initiated disciplinary proceedings against the respondent. After conducting a detailed enquiry and for the proven misconduct, the disciplinary authority has imposed the punishment of removal from service vide proceedings dated 17.11.2016. Thereafter, the respondent has unsuccessfully preferred appeal and revision. Later, challenging 2 the removal order, the respondent has approached this Court by filing W.P.No.28374 of 2018. Without appreciating any of the contentions raised by the appellants, the learned Single Judge vide order dated 24.07.2023 disposed of the writ petition by directing the appellants to refer the case of the respondent to the police having jurisdiction for further course of action, till such time, learned Single Judge suspended the proceedings dated 17.11.2016 of the disciplinary authority as confirmed by the appellate and revisional authorities and directed the appellants to reinstate the respondent into service without setting aside the removal order. Hence, the present Writ Appeal.
4. Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the appellants had contended that while disposing of the main writ petition, the learned Single Judge ought not to have suspended the removal order, at best, he should have adjudicated the case as to whether the disciplinary authority was justified in imposing the punishment of removal. Learned Single Judge ought not to have granted interim relief by suspending the removal order as confirmed by the appellate and revisional authorities and disposed of the writ petition by directing the appellants to lodge a police complaint against the respondent. Pending finalization 3 of the police investigation, the learned Single Judge directed the appellants to reinstate the respondent into service by suspending the removal order, which is unheard of adjudication. When the writ petition itself is disposed of, the question of suspending the removal order does not arise. Therefore, appropriate orders be passed in the writ appeal by setting aside the order passed by the learned Single Judge.
5. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent had contended that the learned Single Judge has rightly disposed of the writ petition by directing the appellants to lodge a police complaint against the respondent, to prove the guilty of the responent. In support of his contention, learned counsel placed reliance on the judgment of the Calcutta High Court in Badal Pal Vs. Union of India and Ors 1, wherein the Calcutta High Court has dealt with the issue without there being a police complaint, the disciplinary authority could not have imposed the punishment of removal. Learned Single Judge was justified in disposing of the writ petition by directing the appellants to lodge a complaint against the respondent, if he has really committed the said offence and pending police investigation, 4 learned Single Judge has rightly suspended the removal order so as to enable the appellants to reinstate the respondent into service. There are no merits in the writ appeal and the same is liable to be dismissed.
6. This Court, having considered the rival submissions made by the learned counsel on either side, is of the view that the learned Single Judge could have adjudicated the case as to whether the disciplinary authority was justified in passing the removal order which was confirmed by the appellate authority, for the proven misconduct. Learned Single Judge ought not to have suspended the removal order and directed the appellants to reinstate the respondent into service pending investigation by the police. Therefore, the order passed the learned Single Judge is liable to be set aside.
7. Accordingly, the Writ Appeal is Allowed by setting aside the order dated 24.07.2023 passed in W.P.No.28374 of 2018 by the learned Single Judge. The matter is remanded back to the learned Single Judge so as to enable the learned Single Judge to adjudicate the matter as to whether the disciplinary 1 2003 SCC online Cal 89 5 authority was justified in passing the removal order for the proven misconduct. Since the writ petition pertains to 2018, learned Single Judge is requested to dispose of the writ petition as expeditiously as possible. No costs.
As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.
_______________________________________ JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI ____________________________________________ JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO Date:16.03.2024 tssb/rkk