This Writ Petition Is Filed vs State Of M.P And Others"1 Wherein ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 236 AP

Citation : 2023 Latest Caselaw 236 AP
Judgement Date : 19 January, 2023

Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati

This Writ Petition Is Filed vs State Of M.P And Others"1 Wherein ... on 19 January, 2023

                                        1


        THE HON'BLE DR.JUSTICE K. MANMADHA RAO

               WRIT PETITION (A.T) No.440 of 2021

ORDER:

This Writ Petition is filed, seeking the following relief:

".....to issue a Writ, Order or direction to call for the records pertaining to the impugned proceedings C.No.A4/MPR/73/2013, dated 13.02.2014 of the 1st respondent and proceedings C.No.53/C2/Revn/RO/2014, dated 20.08.2014 of the 2nd respondent and the proceedings D.Dis.No.237/IGP/Southzone/RR- II/2014 RO No. 122/2014, dated 01.08.2014 of the 3rd respondent and set aside the same as illegal, arbitrary, discriminatory and contrary to rules and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents to release all increments due to the petitioner with all consequential benefits such as arrears and pass such other orders."

2. Heard Mr. Harinath Reddy Somagutta, learned counsel

for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader, Services-I for

the respondents.

3. The brief facts of the case are that while working the

petitioner as Police Constable in Traffic Police Station, Tirupati, a

Charge Memo dated 28.12.2013 was issued by the 1st respondent

under Rule 22 of APCCA Rules alleging certain irregularities againt

the petitioner. The petitioner has submitted detailed explanation

on 15.01.2014 denying the charge. Despite the petitioner has

submitted a plausible explanation, the 1st respondent has chosen

to issued the impugned orders dated 13.02.2014 imposing a minor

penalty of postponement of increment for one year without effect

on future increments and pension. Assailing the said order, the

petitioner preferred an Appeal before the 2nd respondent, which

was dismissed on 08.05.2014. As against the same, the petitioner

preferred a Revision before the 3rd respondent, which was also

rejected without appreciating the contentions advanced by the

petitioner, which is highly illegal and arbitrary. Therefore inaction

of the respondents is questioned in this writ petition.

4. Per contra, the 1st respondent filed counter-affidavit

denying all material averments made in the affidavit and mainly

contended that the petitioner has committed gross negligence in

remitting the fine amount in bank and failure in returning the

M.V. Compounding books in DPO Stores and depositing of fine

amount pertaining to the years 2010, 2012 and 2013 at once on

26.11.2013. Whereas the Inspector of Police held responsible for

gross negligence in accounting the M.V Compounding books and

amount remitted in treasury. Further the charges against the

petitioner and one Mr. K. Venkatappa, Inspector of Police are

different and the gravity also varies, but his case was exonerated

of the charges and warned to be careful in future vide office

proceedings dated 26.01.2014. The action was taken as per the

rules basing on the records and evidence very impartially as both

the employees were equal before the disciplinary authority.

Further the appeal, revision and mercy petition also considered

and rejected as per rules. Therefore the petitioner is not entitled to

claim any relief and same is liable to be dismissed.

5. During hearing learned counsel for the petitioner

reiterated the contents urged in the writ affidavit and relied on the

Judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in "Rajendra Yadav Vs.

State of M.P and Others"1 wherein it was held as follows:

"11. We have gone through the inquiry report placed before us in respect of the appellant as well as Constable Arjun Pathak. The inquiry clearly reveals the role of Arjun Pathak. It was Arjun Pathak who had demanded and received the money, though the tacit approval of the appellant was proved in the inquiry. The charge leveled against Arjun Pathak was more serious than the one charged against the appellant. Both appellants and other two persons as well as Arjun Pathak were involved in the same incident. After having found that Arjun Pathak had a more serious role and, in fact, it was he who had demanded and received the money, he was inflicted comparatively a lighter punishment. At the same time, appellant who had played a passive role was inflicted with a more serious punishment of dismissal from service which, in our view, cannot be sustained."

Further learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the

decision of the Division Bench of erstwhile High Court of A.P in "D.

Srinivas Vs. the Government of A.P and Others2" wherein it

was held as follows:

"12. Further, a Division Bench of this Court in an unreported judgment in W.P.No.23820 of 2008 dated

Civil Appeal No.1334 of 2013, dated 13.02.2013

Writ Petition No.2826 of 2013, dated 26.04.2013

03.11.2008, in a situation where four employees were charged with identical charges and where all of them were exonerated except one and when he was imposed with punishment, this Court found that such an action on the part of the respondents therein amounts to discrimination. The aforesaid judgments fully support the case of the petitioner".

6. In the light of the decisions cited supra, this Court opines

that the same will amount to denial of justice and is

discriminatory and offends Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution

of India. In the instant case as the charges framed against the

petitioner and another Mr. K. Venkatappa, Inspector of Police are

same and identical in all respects and when the case of the Mr. K.

Venkatappa, Inspector of Police are exonerated and given a

warning, there is no reason for imposing punishment on the

petitioner.

7. This Court is of the considered view the principle laid

down in the aforesaid decisions also would apply to the facts of the

present case. As already indicated that the action of the