Penumaka Ramesh vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh,
2021 Latest Caselaw 2642 AP

                                    1




       HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE D.V.S.S.SOMAYAJULU
               WRIT PETITION No.11119 of 2021
ORDER:

This Writ Petition is filed for the following relief:

".....to issue a Writ or order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Certiorari calling for the records pertaining to the proceedings D.O.729/2019, C.No.02/OEPR/2013, dated 30.08.2019 issued by the Respondent No.3 in issuing major penalty of dismissal of the petitioner from service and the proceedings C.No.20/Appeal-P3/P1/DIG/2019, R.O.No.256/2020, dated 08.05.2020 issued by the Respondent No.2 in rejecting the appeal preferred by the petitioner which were issued without conducting any enquiry and without giving any opportunity to the petitioner as nothing but illegal, arbitrary, erroneous, high handed and violative of the APCS (CC&A) Rules, 1991 and Article 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently set aside the proceedings D.O.729/2019, C.No.02/OEPR/2013, dated 30.08.2019 C.No.02/OEPR/2013, dated 30.08.2019 issued by the Respondent No.3 by reinstating the petitioner into service with all consequential and attended benefits and pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case."

This Court has heard Sri A.K. Kishore Reddy, learned

counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader

for Services I appearing for the respondents.

Considering the issues raised, this Court requested the

learned Government Pleader for Services-I to cause production

of the original enquiry and the appeal files. Both the files were

produced. Initially orders were reserved on 07.07.2021,

thereafter on 09.07.2021 certain factual issues noticed from

the file were brought to the notice of the learned Government

Pleader. After obtaining instructions he argued the matter on

16.07.2021. With the consent of both the parties the writ

petition itself is taken up for hearing.

Sri A.K.Kishore Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner

argued for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader

for Services-I ,with the aid of the original files, submitted his

arguments on the merits of the matter.

The petitioner before this Court is a Police Constable,

who was dismissed from service pursuant to the charges which

were framed. The inquiry resulted in an order dated

30.08.2019 passed by the 3rd respondent, by which

punishment of dismissal from services was awarded. This was

confirmed by orders dated 08.05.2020 passed by the 2nd

respondent on appeal. Both these orders are impugned in the

present Writ Petition.

Learned counsel for the petitioner argues that both the

impugned orders dated 30.08.3019 and 08.05.2020 passed by

the 3rd and 2nd respondents do not "contain" reasons. It is his

contention that they are contrary to the settled law on the

subject. He argues that there is no discussion or observation

about the evidence nor are the conclusions supported the

reasons. The explanation given and the appeal filed by the

petitioner are not discussed. According to him the Inquiry

Officer noted that the petitioner submitted his written defense

but the same is not discussed. He points out that the criminal

case which is filed against the petitioner is dismissed on

31.05.2016 (Sessions Case No.217 of 2013). This fact was

brought to the notice of the appellate authority. The same is

totally ignored. He, therefore, points out and argues that both

the orders suffered from the vice of lack of reasons, failure to

consider the material and are in direct contravention of rules

of natural justice. He points out that they are "non-speaking

order" which have to be set aside.

In reply to this learned Government Pleader for Services-

I, after considering the files which were produced in original,

argues that the disciplinary authority in his Order dated

30.08.2019 considered the minutes / conclusions dated

15.03.2015 submitted by the Inquiry Officer. He points out

that the Inquiry Officer's minutes are filed by the petitioner

himself and they contained detailed discussions. Relying on

the same he submits that the order dated 30.08.2019 was

passed by the 3rd respondent. Similarly, he justifies the order

passed by the appellate authority on 08.05.2020. He points

out that the appellate authority has considered the record and

thereafter only came to the said conclusion. He argues that

long detailed orders are not necessary in such cases. He

submits that both the orders were passed after considering the

facts / documents etc.

This Court after hearing both the learned counsel and

perusing the original files notices that the impugned order

dated 30.08.2019 refers to the show cause notice dated

07.04.2015 only. The statement of defense which is mentioned

in the page 2 of this document (15.04.2015) is not at all

discussed. The evidence of the witnesses etc., is not discussed.

It merely states that the authority has gone through the

Memorandum of Charges, minutes of the Inquiry Officer, other

connected records and the O.E. submitted to him. There is no

discussion as to what actually prevailed with him in coming to

the conclusions. The explanation submitted by the Charged

officer is negatived in one line by saying "Explanation of the

Charged Officer is not convincing". Nothing further is stated.

A perusal of the original file shows that the explanation

dated 15.04.2015 submitted by the petitioner runs into a

number of pages. He discusses the evidence of each of the

witnesses and raises a number of factual and other legal

issues. He also states in his reply that as the criminal case is

pending the enquiry should be kept pending till the disposal of

the criminal case. All these issues that are raised are not at

all discussed.

Similarly, a perusal of the original record shows that on

16.09.2019 the petitioner had submitted an appeal to the 2 nd

respondent against the proceedings dated 30.08.2019. This

appeal is also running into large number of pages. The certified

copy of the judgment in S.C.No. 217 of 2013 is enclosed. The

record shows that on 23.11.2019 one more copy of the appeal

grounds was submitted and in the second submission, apart

from the certified copy of the judgment in S.C.No.217 of 2013,

certified copies of the depositions of three witnesses were also

said to be enclosed. These depositions are also in the file.

Whether the matters mentioned in this appeal grounds are

correct or not is not for this Court to decide. However, the fact

remains that none of these issues are discussed in the order

that is passed on 08.05.2020.

Time and again this Court has laid down and stressed

the importance of reasons. The link between the conclusions

and the material are the reasons. Unless the reasons are

available the higher Court or appellate authority cannot decide

what prevailed with the Inquiry Officer. This Court is unable

to appreciate on what ground the petitioner was found guilty.

The judgment relied upon by the counsel for the petitioner in

W.P.No.1281 of 2020 also makes it clear that a non-speaking

order is clearly a violation of principles of natural justice.

Despite the large amount of law on the subject orders of this

nature are still continuing to be passed. Hence, both the

proceedings dated 30.08.2019 and 08.05.2020 are set aside.

There shall be a fresh hearing of the matter before the

disciplinary authority. He shall pass a speaking order on the

subject considering all the issues raised. Petitioner should be

given an opportunity to participate and also make appropriate

submissions, written or oral, if he so desires. The entire

exercise should be completed within two months from the date

of receipt of a copy of this Order. later depending on this order

in case any appeal is filed, the petitioner / appellant should be

given an opportunity and a speaking order should be passed

within a strict time frame. The time schedule should be clearly

adhered to.

With the above observation the Writ Petition is allowed.

There shall be no order as to costs.

Consequently, the Miscellaneous Applications, if any,

pending shall stand closed.

__________________________ D.V.S.S.SOMAYAJULU, J

Date:27.07.2021.

Ssv