Telangana High Court
S.Pitcheswara Rao vs The Govt. Of Telangana on 25 March, 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT
HYDERABAD
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO
Dated this the 25th day of March, 2026
WRIT PETITION No.20951 of 2018
Between:
S. Pitcheswara Rao .. Petitioner
AND
The Government of Telangana, represented by its Prl.
Secretary, Department of Home Affairs, Hyderabad and
three others
.. Respondents
ORDER:
The present Writ Petition is filed by the petitioner to quash the Order passed by the A.P. Administrative Tribunal in O.A. No.7520 of 2013, dated 14.09.2016, and to release all consequential benefits.
2. Heard Sri B. Krishna, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader for Home appearing for the respondents.
3. Brief facts of the case are as follows:
(a) Petitioner filed O.A.No. 7520 of 2013 before the A.P. Administrative Tribunal challenging the order of the 2 2nd respondent wherein punishment of RTSP by 3 stages for 3 years with effect is awarded and the period of suspension from 04.05.2007 to 15.10.2008 is treated as 'Not on duty' vide proceedings in D.O.No.4049, No.L&O/B7/346/2007, dated 2-6/7-2013 as illegal.
(b) The petitioner was initially appointed as a Police Constable and subsequently promoted as Head Constable and posted at CAR (Central Armed Reserve) Hyderabad. In the year 2007, while he was working on deputation at Cherlapalli Jail, he was assigned the duty of escorting the convicted prisoners. On 27.04.2007, the petitioner was entrusted the duty to escort two convicted prisoners namely Afzal (No.7697) and Syed Arshad Baqtiquar (No.7701) along with another PC-9065 Sri E.Paul to Osmania General Hospital for treatment. The two prisoners were taken to Neurology Department to consult the doctor concerned, but the doctor was not available at his room No.213, they proceeded to Room No.214 where they were directed to go over to Osmania General Hospital old building Room No.219. Again, the junior doctor 3 stationed there, directed them to go to "Quli Qutub Shahi"
block Room No.404. There also, they did not find any doctor to get treatment for the prisoners and therefore, the fact was informed to the Head Constable Manaiah and further informed that they were coming to the vehicle. This information is given to Sri Manaiah by a cell phone.
(c) Before going to the vehicle, the petitioner asked E. Paul, PC-9065 to get Tiffin and offered Rs.50/-, but the PC rejected to bring Tiffin. While they were coming down to the vehicle, Syed Fazal, one of the convict prisoners, pushed the petitioner down and escaped from his custody.
Though he tried to chase the prisoner, he could not succeed. In view of the said incident, the petitioner was placed under suspension by disciplinary authority vide D.O.No.1027/No.L&O/87/346/2007, dated 01.05.2007. Subsequently, a preliminary enquiry was conducted by the Assistant Commissioner of Police, III CAR Head Quarters, Hyderabad, and submitted his report dated 23.4.2007. After receiving the said report of the ACP, it was decided by the competent authority to conduct a regular enquiry and therefore, a charge memo was issued vide No. 4 L&O/B9/PR/73/07 No.L&O/B9/346/2006, dated 31.8.2007 which reads as under:
Article of Charge:
S/Sri S.Pitcheswar Rao, HC 1144 & E.Paul, PC 9065 of (G) Coy, CAR Head Quarters, Hyderabad, were on deputation to jail department and while they were performing Escort Duty at Osmania General Hospotial on 27-04-2007, the two CT Prisoners 1) Syed Afzal No.7697 2) Syed Arshad Baqtiqar, No.7701 of Charlapalli Jail escaped from their custody from Osmania General Hospital. The prisoners escaped from the custody due to gross negligence and dereliction of duty.
S/Sri S.Pitcheswar Rao, HC 1144 & E.Paul, PC 9065 of (G) Coy, CAR Head Quarters, Hyderabad, by their above mentioned act, has exhibited lack of devotion to duty and conduct unbecoming of a Government Servant and thereby contravened Rule 3(1) and (2) of the APCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964.
(d) The petitioner submitted his explanation for the charge memo on 10.10.2007 and denied any kind of negligence and also stated that instead of giving two security persons for one prisoner, the authorities gave only one security for one prisoner which is contrary to the provisions. The Inspector of Police, Mahankali Police Station, Secunderabad, was appointed as Enquiry Officer and the said officer conducted the enquiry and submitted 5 his report stating that the charge framed against the petitioner was proved. While the enquiry was pending, the petitioner was reinstated into service vide D.O.No.3458/No.L&O/B7/346/2007, dated 15.10.2008.
(e) The competent authority sent a notice to the petitioner to submit petitioner's explanation to the enquiry report and he submitted his explanation, stating that several lapses in conducting the process of enquiry. In the report, it was shown that, the petitioner did not handcuff the prisoner when he was taken to the Osmania General Hospital for treatment. In the explanation, the petitioner stated that the prisoner was handcuffed, but that fact was not properly appreciated by the Enquiry Officer. Based on the report of the Enquiry Officer, the disciplinary authority imposed a punishment of 'reduction of Time Scale of Pay by three stages for three years with effect' and further, the period of suspension of the applicant from 04.05.2007 to 15.10.2008 is treated as 'not on duty' vide D.O.No.4049/No.L&O/B7/346/2007, dated 2.6/7.2013. 6
(f) Questioning the punishment order dated 2.6/7.2013 of the 2nd respondent, the petitioner filed O.A.No.7520 of 2013 before the A.P. Administrative Tribunal and the said O.A. was listed on 14.09.2016 under the caption of 'for dismissal' and the O.A. was dismissed for default.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the counsel, who was appeared on behalf of the petitioner, was a Government Pleader and he did not appear before the Tribunal when petitioner's case was called. There was a communication gap between the petitioner's earlier counsel and the petitioner, as such, he could not inform the petitioner about the dismissal of petitioner's O.A. Later, when the petitioner approached his earlier counsel, he was informed about the dismissal of O.A. and the petitioner got the certified copy of the same.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the petitioner could not file restoration petition before the Tribunal as the jurisdiction of the Telangana State was withdrawn by the Government of India in the month of 7 September 2016. A.P. Accordingly, prayed to allow the Writ Petition.
6. Learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents filed counter by contending that the Tribunal in its orders dated 14.09.2016 in O.A.No.7520 of 2013 dismissed the OA for default, as there was no representation on behalf of the petitioner though the OA had been listed under the caption of 'for dismissal'. The petitioner and co-delinquent E.Paul, PC 9065 of 'G' Coy CAR Hqtrs., Hyderabad, were on deputation to Jail Department and while they were on escort duty at Osmania General Hospital on 27.04.2007 two Convict Prisoners namely Syed Afzal and Syed Arshad Baqtiyar escaped from their custody from Osmania General Hospital, as such, for their gross negligence of duty and irresponsible behavior they were placed under suspension vide D.O.No. 1027, dated 01.05.2007.
7. Learned Government Pleader further submits that as per the norms the convict prisoners should have been handcuffed but that was not done by the above escort 8 Police personnel, while escorting them to the Quli Qutub Shah Block of OGH. Only one person i.e. the petitioner was standing near the two convicts, whereas PC 9065, Sri E. Paul went inside. The petitioner allowed convicts to use cell phone, which led the above said two convict prisoners to escape from OGH. Thus, they had exhibited gross negligence, irresponsible behaviour and dereliction of duty while performing escort duty on 27.04.2007 and thereby contravened Rule 3 (1) and (2) of Andhra Pradesh Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1964.
8. Learned Government Pleader further submits that the petitioner and co-delinquent had submitted their written statements of defence on 12.10.2007 (PC 9065) and 22.09.2007 (petitioner) respectively denying the charges leveled against them. After going through their written explanations, oral enquiry was ordered against them appointing Inspector of Police, Mahankali P.S. Hyderabad, as Inquiring Authority vide proceedings dated 05.03.2008. The Inquiring Authority had submitted that during the enquiry proceedings, it is clearly established that the C.T Prisoners 1) Syed Afzal NO.7697 and 2) Syed 9 Arshad Baqtiyar No.7701 of Cherlapally Jail were handed over to the petitioner and co-delinquent PC 9065 Sri E.Paul for escort to Hospital. They were taken to OP block where the duty doctor not available. They were again taken to Qulli Qutub Shah building for treatment where also the duty doctor was not available.
9. Learned Government Pleader further submits that when the duty doctors were not available in the consulting rooms, it is the duty of a police personnel who are allotted escort duty to the prisoners, have to return to the vehicle and to hand them over to the In-charge, HC, but they failed to do so. The petitioner also gave a chance to the CT Prisoners, who were notorious Rowdy Sheeters of Humayun Nagar Police Station, Hyderabad, involved in several bodily offences and convicted in a Murder case, to talk over mobile phone which shows their gross negligence towards legitimate duties. Based on the documentary and oral evidence adduced during the Oral Enquiry, the Inquiring Authority after following the prescribed procedure of Andhra Pradesh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules 1991 had submitted his 10 findings holding the charge as 'proved' in respect of the petitioner and co-delinquent PC 9065 Sri E. Paul.
10. Learned Government Pleader further submits that the contention of the petitioner that the punishment is disproportionate and improper and unjust is not correct. As per norms, the Convict Prisoners should have been hand cuffed which was not done by the petitioner and his co-delinquent who were deputed to guard them as they were life convict prisoners and the PC and the petitioner had not carried their weapons which shows their gross negligence. The Disciplinary Authority had gone through their final explanations and the connected records carefully and they were awarded the punishment as stated supra. The said orders were acknowledged by the petitioner and co-delinquent PC 9065 Sri E.Paul on 15.07.2013 and 13.07.2013 respectively.
11. Learned Government Pleader further submits that the petitioner had filed O.A.No. 7520/2013 before the Tribunal against the punishment and the Tribunal by its orders dated 14.09.2016 dismissed the OA for default, as 11 there was no representation on behalf of the applicant though the OA is listed under the caption of 'for dismissal'. Moreover, the petitioner had approached the Tribunal without exhausting the proper channels of appeal and revision petition. The petitioner has to avail the opportunity of preferring an appeal to the next appellate authority i.e Director General of Police, Telangana, Hyderabad as per Telangana Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1991 within 3 months from date of receipt of orders of the Disciplinary Authority.
12. Learned Government Pleader further submits that the oral enquiry was conducted, as per rules giving reasonable opportunity to the petitioner to defend himself during the oral enquiry. There is nothing illegal on the part of the respondent in issuing impugned order as disciplinary action was taken strictly in accordance with Telangana Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1991. Accordingly, prayed to dismiss the Writ Petition.
12
13. Learned counsel for the petitioner filed reply affidavit reiterating the contents of the petition and further submits that the petitioner was given one handcuffs at the time of passporting for escort duty, as such, he handcuffed the C.T. Prisoner 7697 Syed Afzal at the Hospital, while returning to the vehicle the said prisoner suddenly pushed him aside and ran away. Immediately, the petitioner followed the prisoner up to the bus stop, but in vain. The petitioner never gave a cell phone to the prisoners to talk them with somebody, which led to escape them. There is no evidence in the enquiry and no witness has been said about the same. As such, the other delinquent officer PC 9065 Sri E. Paul is not a witness and not examined in the enquiry conducted against the petitioner. Thus, merely based on surmises and conjectures the charge cannot be proved.
14. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of "Narayan Dattatraya Ramteerthakhar Vs. State of Maharashtra and others" reported in SCC 1997 (1) 299, the full bench of the Hon'ble Apex Court categorically held 13 that the preliminary enquiry has nothing to do with the enquiry conducted after the issue of the charge-sheet. Therefore, the contention of the Enquiry Officer does not stand for legal scrutiny, as there is no evidence adduced in the full pledged oral enquiry about that the petitioner was allowed to use the cell phone by the C.T. prisoner, is far from the truth.
15. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits the Jail officials knowing fully that the OP will be closed by the 11.00 am at Osmania General Hospital, the officials handed over the prisoners at 10.15 am at Cherlapalli Jail. It is highly not possible to reach the Hospital by 11.00 am in the vehicle. It is also high handedness of the higher officials while detailing the petitioner on escort duty. The officials did not inform the petitioner about the nominal roll of the C.T. Prisoners who are notorious criminals and they were convicted life prisoners. The officials also knowing fully about the C.T. Prisoners, they detailed one escort to one prisoner which is also not in according with the guidelines, normally they have to give two escorts to one prisoner. Having fault with the higher officials and 14 made the petitioner as scapegoat in the escape of the C.T. Prisoners.
16. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that, it is the duty of the officials to handover the weapons to the escort guards. In the instant case, petitioner was handed over one handcuff only at the time of handing over the L.T. Prisoner, which the petitioner handcuffed the prisoner at the time of escape. Thus, the impugned punishment orders dated 02.06.2013 is illegal and liable to set aside.
FINDINGS OF THE COURT:
17. A perusal of the record shows that on 27.04.2007, the petitioner was entrusted the duty to escort two convicted prisoners namely Syed Afzal (No.7697) and Syed Arshad Baqtiquar (No.7701) along with another PC-9065 Sri E.Paul to Osmania General Hospital for treatment. Due to the gross negligence and dereliction of the duty of the petitioner, the said prisoners escaped from the custody of the petitioner and another constable. The contention of the petitioner is that, generally, the OP is closed by 11 15 a.m. at Osmania General Hospital. Knowing fully about the said timings, the officials handed over the prisoners to them at 10.15 a.m. at Cherlapally jail. In the said circumstances, it was not possible for them to reach the said Hospital by 11 a.m.
18. The other contention of the petitioner is that, the officials did not inform the petitioner about the normal role of the Lifetime petitioners who are notorious criminals and they were convicted life prisoners. They detailed one escort to one prisoner which is also not in accordance with the guidelines. Normally, they have to give two escorts to one prisoner. It is the duty of the officials to hand over weapons to the escort guards. In the instant case, petitioner was handed over one handcuff only at the time of handing over the LT prisoners.
19. Per contra, it is the contention of the respondents that as per the norms, the convict prisoners should have been handcuffed but that was not done by the above escort Police personnel, while escorting them to the Quli Qutub Shah Block of Osmania General Hospital. Only one 16 person i.e. the petitioner was standing near the two convicts, whereas PC 9065, Sri E. Paul went inside. The petitioner allowed convicts to use cell phone, which led the above said two convict prisoners to escape from Osmania General Hospital. Thus, they had exhibited gross negligence, irresponsible behaviour and dereliction of duty while performing escort duty on 27.04.2007. In that view of the matter, the negligent actions of the petitioner cannot be denied.
20. It is not disputed by the respondents that they did not provide four escorts for the two convicted persons. It is also not disputed by them, as per petitioner's contention; generally, the OP is closed by 11 a.m. at Osmania General Hospital. Knowing fully about the said timings, the officials handed over the prisoners to them at 10.15 a.m. at Cherlapally jail. In the said circumstances, it was not possible for them to reach the said Hospital by 11 a.m. It is also not disputed by the respondents that they did not provide weapons to the escort guards. In the said circumstances, there are lapses on both sides from the departmental side and escorts' side. Thus, the 17 petitioner only cannot be made scapegoat for the entire episode.
21. In view of the foregoing discussion, this court is modifying the punishment order of the 2nd respondent in D.O.No.4049, No.L&O/B7/346/2007, dated 2-6/7-2013 from reduction of time scale of pay by three stages for three years with effect on future increments and pension, to that of reduction of time scale of pay by one stage for one year with effect on future increments only from 01.05.2007 till his date of superannuation, but not in pension.
22. Wit the above modification, this Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.
As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, in this Writ Petition, shall stand closed.
____________________________________ NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO, J Date:25.03.2026 BDR