Heard Sri J.U.M.V. Prasad vs Divisional Security ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 3660 AP

         HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI
MAIN CASE No:.W.A.Nos.718 & 675 of 2023
                      PROCEEDING SHEET
SL.     DATE                            ORDER                              OFFICE
NO.                                                                         NOTE
2     24.07.2023 DVSS, J & DVR,J

                                  I.A.No.1 of 2023
                      Heard     Sri     J.U.M.V.     Prasad,   learned
                Standing Counsel for the appellants and Sri
                Pardha       saradhi,      learned        counsel    for
                respondent.

Writ Appeal is filed against the order in W.P.No.1595 of 2022, dated 15.06.2023. Learned Standing Counsel for the appellants points out that the learned single Judge disagreed on the reduction of punishment. The initial punishment order was termination from service. In the course of hearing of the appeal, the said order was changed/reduced to compulsory retirement. The writ petition was filed questioning the order of termination from service. The learned single Judge in course of his order came to the conclusion that the authority showed misplaced sympathy and favored the writ petitioner. He directed the Registry to register the Suo-Motu case against the appellants and respondents including the Union of India.

learned Standing Counsel for the appellants points out that the authority acted strictly within the jurisdiction available in reducing the punishment. He also refers to the SL. DATE ORDER OFFICE NO. NOTE Railway Protection Force Rules, 1987 and in particular Rule 217.3(C)(i) which empowers the appellant authority to set aside, confirm, reduce or enhance the punishment. Therefore, it is his contention that the said power is available and that the finding of the learned single Judge that the same was a perverse exercise power is not correct at all. He contends that the Court can go into the merits of the matter and decide finally if, the reduction in punishment is perverse or not. He also relies upon the judgment of the Supreme Court of India and Division Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in A.Raj Kumar vs. Divisional Security Commissioner, RPF and other reported in {(2018) 2 ALD 844} and in particularly Para 8 and 9 with regard to the scope of judicial review. Therefore, it is his contention that the direction for action to be initiated in the form of Suo-Motu case taken must be stayed.

Learned counsel for the respondent also in a way supports the submissions of learned Standing Counsel for the appellants. Since the case is directed to be registered even against the writ petitioner he also agrees with the rule cited above would apply to the facts and circumstances of the case and discretion is vested with the appellant authority to modify, reduce or even enhancement of the SL. DATE ORDER OFFICE NO. NOTE punishment.

Considering the submissions made this Court is of the opinion, that there should be an interim stay as prayed for with regard to the Suo- Motu taken up case which was directed to be registered by the Registry of the High Court. The case law on the judicial review also weighs with this court.

Learned Standing Counsel for the appellants submits that the pension and all other benefits which were hither to paid have been stopped by virtue of the learned single Judge order. He submits that he would advice the client to resume the payments.

Needless to say all the payments made in the subject to result of the appeal. All issues are to be decided in the Appeal.

_______ DVSS,J

______ DVR,J

W.A.Nos.718 & 675 of 2023 List the appeals for hearing in due course.

_______ DVSS,J

______ DVR,J

ANS