T. Mohan Rao vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh,
2021 Latest Caselaw 1143 AP

         HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH : AMARAVATI


 HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE ARUP KUMAR GOSWAMI, CHIEF JUSTICE
                            &
          HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE C.PRAVEEN KUMAR


                           Writ Appeal No.52 of 2021

                           (Through video conferencing)

T.Mohan Rao (A.S.I.1744), S/o Nagabushanam,
aged 58 years, Occ : working as A.S.I.,
Srihari Kota Police Station, Sullurupeta Circle,
Sri Potti Sriramulu Nellore District.                     ..    Appellant


                                     Versus

The State of Andhra Pradesh,
Rep. by its Secretary, Home Department,
Secretariat, Velagapudi,
Guntur District & 3 Others                                ..    Respondents


Counsel for the Appellant                     :   Mr.K.Muralidhar Reddy

Counsel for the Respondents                   :   G.P. for Services-I


Date of Hearing                               :   16.02.2021

Date of pronouncement                         :    25.02.2021


                                  JUDGMENT

(per C.Praveen Kumar, J)

1. The appellant, who is the writ petitioner, filed the present appeal

under Clause-XV of Letters Patent, assailing the order, dated 01.12.2020,

passed in W.P.No.22607 of 2020, whereby the plea of the petitioner that

the charge memo has to be quashed, due to deletion of Section 406

I.P.C. in the charge-sheet, has been rejected.

2. The averments in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition

show that writ petitioner herein was selected as Police Constable in the

year 1984. He was initially promoted as Head Constable and then as

Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police in the year 2014. While things stood

thus, the daughter-in-law of the petitioner lodged a report before the

Superintendent of Police, Nellore, on 09-09-2019, against the petitioner

and petitioner' son, wife and daughter, which led to registration of a case

in crime No.98 of 2019 for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A,

406 I.P.C. and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. The

petitioner also claims to have lodged a report on 29.07.2019 in Balaji

Nagar Police Station, Nellore, against the relatives of his daughter-in-law,

which was registered as crime No.187 of 2009. In so far as the crime

registered against the petitioner and others, the Police investigated into

the matter and filed a charge sheet for the offences punishable under

Section 498-A I.P.C. and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

The said case was taken on file as C.C.No.3336 of 2019 on the file of the

Judicial Magistrate of First Class for Special Mobile Court, Nellore. Having

regard to the crime registered against the petitioner, a Memorandum of

Articles of Charge, dated 28.01.2020 was served on the petitioner on

21.02.2020. On 16.03.2020, the petitioner submitted an explanation to

the allegations leveled against him to the Inspector General of Police,

South Coastal Zone, Guntur Range, denying the allegations made against

him. It was further stated that since the Police have deleted Section 406

I.P.C. while filing charge sheet, the charge memo, which was based on

F.I.R., has to be dropped. It is said that without taking into consideration

the explanation submitted, the proceedings, dated 26.03.2020, came to

be issued exercising powers under Rule 20(2) of Andhra Pradesh Civil

Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1991 appointing the

4th respondent as an Enquiry Officer.

3. The averments in the affidavit further show that on 09.07.2020 the

4th respondent directed the petitioner to attend for oral enquiry on

15.07.2020 and accordingly the petitioner appeared before him and

sought for time, which was accepted. Though the petitioner was directed

to appear on 08.10.2020, he did not do so as he was unwell and the

same was conveyed to the 4th respondent. Thereafter, the present Writ

Petition came to be filed challenging the charge memo. By its order,

dated 01.02.2020, the learned single Judge rejected the plea of the

petitioner holding that two proceedings are independent of each other

and that the F.I.R. cannot be the basis for issuance of charge memo.

The Court also directed the petitioner to raise the objections, if any,

before the Enquiry Officer. With the above direction, the Writ Petition

was dismissed. Challenging the same, the present appeal is filed.

4. Sri K.Muralidhar Reddy, learned counsel for the appellant, mainly

submits that when the F.I.R. was made the basis to issue charge memo

and when Section 406 I.P.C. was deleted, while filing the charge-sheet,

the entire fabric of the case collapses and the charge memo has to be

quashed. He further submits that question of raising objection before the

Enquiry Officer would not arise, as it is only an oral enquiry.

5. In order to appreciate the same, it will be appropriate to extract

the article of charge framed against the petitioner, which is as under :

"ARTICLE OF CHARGE

"Exhibited gross reprehensible misconduct of harassing his daughter-in-law Smt.K.Sandhya physically and mentally for getting additional dowry and involving as an accused in criminal case in Cr.No.98/2019 u/s 498-A, 406 I.P.C. and Sections 3&4 of D.P. Act of Women Police Station, Nellore District, which is unbecoming of Government servant and thereby he violated Rule 3 and 9 of APCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964."

6. From a reading of the above charge it is very clear that the

substance of allegation against the petitioner relate to harassing his

daughter-in-law physically and mentally for getting additional dowry,

which is unbecoming of a Government servant, thereby violating the

Rules 3 and 9 of APCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964. Reference to the crime

registered against the petitioner and the provisions of law under which

crime was registered was mentioned in the charge.

7. The basis of the charge is the report given by Smt.Kedakoti

Sandhya (daughter-in-law of the petitioner) alleging harassment by her

husband, writ petitioner, mother-in-law, sister-in-law and sister-in-law's

husband. The statements show that all the above persons demanded for

additional dowry of Rs.10,00,000/- or for registration of a house in the

name of A1. The basis of the charge also shows that her husband beat

her indiscriminately on 27.07.2019 and in spite of informing the same to

her in-laws, there was no proper response, except abusing the persons

who went and asked about the alleged act of harassment by the son of

the petitioner. The charge also speaks about keeping the gold ornaments

belonging to the daughter-in-law of the petitioner with the family of the

accused.

8. It may be true that the Police have filed the charge-sheet deleting

Section 406 I.P.C., but that by itself cannot be a ground to quash the

charge memo issued against the accused when prima facie allegations

made therein show misconduct on the part of the petitioner.

9. Even otherwise, it is to be noted that the departmental

proceedings and the criminal proceedings are parallel and separate and

the conclusions and findings drawn in these two proceedings are

independent of each other.

10. In State of West Bengal v. Sankar Ghosh1 the Hon'ble Supreme

Court held that, 'the standard of proof required in a criminal case and the

standard of proof required to establish a charge in the departmental

enquiry are different and that the mere fact that the employee was

acquitted or discharged in a criminal case by itself cannot be a ground to

hold that the employee is not guilty of the charges in the departmental

enquiry.'

11. After referring to the judgments of the Apex Court in Captain

M.Paul Anthony v. Bharat Gold Mines Ltd 2; G.M.Tank v. State of

Gujarat3; and Krishnakali Tea Estate v. Akhil Bhartiya Chah

Mazdoor Sangh4, the Hon'ble Apex Court in Karnataka Power Trans.

Corp. Ltd. Vs. Sri C. Nagaraju & Anr5, held as under :

'It is settled law that the acquittal by a Criminal Court does not preclude a Departmental Inquiry against the delinquent officer. The Disciplinary Authority is not bound by the judgment of the Criminal Court if the

(2014) 3 SCC 610

(1999) 3 SCC 679

(2006) 5 SCC 446

(2004) 8 SCC 200

Civil Appeal No. 7279 of 2019 dt. 16/9/2019

evidence that is produced in the Departmental Inquiry is different from that produced during the criminal trial. The object of a Departmental Inquiry is to find out whether the delinquent is guilty of misconduct under the conduct rules for the purpose of determining whether he should be continued in service. The standard of proof in a Departmental Inquiry is not strictly based on the rules of evidence. The order of dismissal which is based on the evidence before the Inquiry Officer in the disciplinary proceedings, which is different from the evidence available to the Criminal Court, is justified and needed no interference by the High Court.'

12. Similar such view was taken by the Division Bench of this Court in

W.P.No.21953 of 2020, dated 31.12.2020.

13. From the judgments of the Apex Court referred to above it is very

clear that the object of the departmental enquiry is to find out whether

the delinquent is guilty of misconduct under the Conduct Rules for the

purpose of determining whether he should be continued in service.

Therefore, the argument of the learned counsel for the appellant that the

charge memo should be quashed as the police have deleted Section 406

I.P.C. from the charge-sheet cannot be accepted and accordingly the

same is rejected.

14. In so far as the finding given by the learned single Judge with

regard to giving liberty to the petitioner to approach the Enquiry Officer,

it is to be noted that since the preliminary enquiry has not yet

commenced, as per the averments in the affidavit, it is always open to

the petitioner to put-forward his case before the Enquiry Officer.

15. For the aforesaid reasons, we see no ground to interfere with the

order of the learned single Judge.

16. Accordingly, the Writ Appeal is dismissed. No costs.

Consequently, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand

closed.

ARUP KUMAR GOSWAMI, CJ                            C. PRAVEEN KUMAR, J

skmr