Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
B.Jagan Mohan Rao vs The Superintendent Of Police on 2 August, 2024
1
*HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI
+WRIT PETITION No.28471 of 2022
Between:
# B. Jagan Mohan Rao, S/o B. Venkataiah
... Petitioner
And
$ The Superintendent of Police,
Guntur Rural District, Guntur and 3 others.
.... Respondents
JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED ON 02.08.2024
THE HON'BLE DR.JUSTICE K. MANMADHA RAO
1. Whether Reporters of Local newspapers
may be allowed to see the Judgments?
- Yes -
2. Whether the copies of judgment may be marked to Law
Reporters/Journals
- Yes -
3. Whether Their Ladyship/Lordship wish to see the fair
copy of the Judgment?
- Yes -
___________________________________
DR.JUSTICE K. MANMADHA RAO
2
* THE HON'BLE DR.JUSTICE K. MANMADHA RAO
+WRIT PETITION No.28471 of 2022
% 02.08.2024
Between:
# B. Jagan Mohan Rao, S/o B. Venkataiah
... Petitioner
And
$ The Superintendent of Police,
Guntur Rural District, Guntur and 3 others.
.... Respondents
! Counsel for the Petitioner : Sri Somisetty Ganesh Babu
Counsel for Respondents: G.P for Services-I
<Gist :
>Head Note:
? Cases referred:
1. AIR 1999 SC 1416
2. 2006 (4) SCJ 1
3. 2011 (5) ALT 777
3
APHC010467352022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI [3310]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
FRIDAY ,THE SECOND DAY OF AUGUST
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE K MANMADHA RAO
WRIT PETITION NO: 28471/2022
Between:
B.jagan Mohan Rao ...PETITIONER
AND
The Superintendent Of Police and Others ...RESPONDENT(S)
Counsel for the Petitioner:
1. SOMISETTY GANESH BABU
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. GP FOR SERVICES I
The Court made the following:
ORDER:
This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for
the following relief:
".....to issue a Writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandaus
st
declaring the impugned Proc C.No.06/OEPR/A7/2014 dated 16.10.2017 issued by the 1
nd
respondent and its consequential orders passed by the 2 respondent on appeal petition vide
Proc.C.No.106/Appl/2019, R.O.O.No.684/2019, dated 14.8.2019 and the orders passed in
Revision Petition vide D.Dis.No.599/T4/2021, dated 20.7.2022 as being illegal, arbitrary and
contrary to the law on the subject and set aside the same and consequently hold that the
petitioner is entitled for treating the entire period from the date of dismissal i.e., from
16.3.2011 to 25.6.2013 AN as on duty with all consequential and attendant benefits and
pass...."
2. The case of the petitioner is that he was appointed as Police
Constable (AR). He was arrested by the Narasaraopet I Town P.S on
13.03.2011 on the ground that he is indulging in cricket betting and registered
a case in Cr.No.47 of 2011 under Section 3 and 4 of A.P. Gaming Act and
produced before the Hon'ble Additional Junior Civil Judge Court,
Narasaraopet. Thereafter, the 1st respondent directed the petitioner to submit
his explanation. Accordingly the petitioner has submitted his explanation on
28.4.2014. However, without considering the same the 1st respondent issued
proceedings vide No.2221/A7/2011 DONo.468/2011 dated 25.3.2011.
Challenging the same, the petitioner preferred O.A.No.2999 of 2011 before
the Hon'ble A.P. Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad. The Tribunal vide order
dated 04.05.2011 has granted interim direction suspending the orders dated
25.03.2011. Later, the 2nd respondent issued Memo C.No.18/G1/2011 dated
12.04.2012 requesting the 1st respondent to take further action either by filing
the writ petition or implementing the APAT orders as deems fit. Meanwhile,
the Hon'ble I Additional Junior Civil Judge, Narasaraopet, after completion of
trial, acquitted the petitioner from the criminal charge holding that the
prosecution failed to produce any piece of paper to show that the said
building/room in which cricket betting was taken place, was in the name of
petitioner. Basing on the above judgment, the petitioner made an appeal
dated 18.9.2012 for reinstatement of duty by duly submitting that he was
unjustly dismissed from service in contravention of the CCA Rules. On
considering the same, the 2nd respondent issued Proc.C.No.18/G1/2011,
R.O.O. No.4162023 dated 13.6.2013 setting aside the punishment of
dismissal and directed to reinstate the petitioner to duty with instructions to the
1st respondent to conduct fresh oral enquiry under Rule 20 for the alleged
delinquency of absence for duty and indulging in cricket betting. While so, the
1st respondent issued C.No.6/PR/2014, dated 14.4.2014 proposing to hold
departmental enquiry against the petitioner and framed a charge that he was
arrested at 10.30 PM on 12.3.2011. Later, an enquiry was conducted into the
matter in contravention of Rule 20 of CCA Rules and submitted his minutes to
the 1st respondent holding that the charges are held proved vide C.No.16/OE-
PR/DSC Crime/2014 dated 23.3.2016. It is further submitted that, before
submitting representation of the petitioner, the 1st respondent issued
Proc.No.06/OE-PR/A7/2014, dated 16.10.2017 awarding the punishment of
"Postponement of increments for a period of ONE year with effect on future
increment and pension and absence period from 12.3.2011 to 15.3.2011 and
the out of employment period from 16.3.2011 to 25.6.2013 AN is treated as
leave without pay. Against the above punishment, the petitioner preferred an
appeal and review petitions and the same were rejected vide Proc
No.106/Appl/2019, R.O.O.No.684/2019 dated 14.8.2019 and D.Dis
No.599/T4/2021, dated 20.7.2022 without properly considering the case of the
petitioner. Challenging the same, the petitioner has filed the present writ
petition.
3. Heard Sri Somisetty Ganesh Babu, learned counsel appearing for
the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Services-I
appearing for the respondents.
4. On hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner while reiterating the
contents made in the petition, submits that, admittedly the evidences and
witnesses in criminal case as also the departmental enquiry are one and the
same. Therefore, conducting OE., for the self same charge which is not
proved by the competent criminal court and imposing punishment is not at all
justified in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in Cap.M.Paul
Anthony vs. Bharat Gold Mines Limited and others 1 and also other
judgments reported in State of Punjab vs Bahadur Singh & Others2 and in
AFJAL IMAM v. STATE OF BIHAR AND ORS3- para-11 and the Hon'ble
High Court in catena of cases. He further submits that by following the
aforesaid law on the subject, the Hon'ble High Court rendered judgment in WP
No.24286 of 2005 dated 1.12.2014 setting aside the punishment imposed
against the petitioner in the aforesaid petition. Therefore, in the present case
on hand also, the charge both in criminal case and the departmental
proceedings are one and the same and the witnesses are also one and the
same as such holding that the charges against the applicant are held proved
and imposing punishment without considering the judgment of the learned
Criminal Court is highly illegal and arbitrary. Hence, learned counsel
AIR 1999 SUPREME COURT 1416
2006 (4) SCJ 1
2011(5) ALT 777
requests this Court to pass similar order in this case also. He further submits
that, in view of the aforesaid law on the subject, the orders issued by the 1 st
respondent are liable to be set aside since the applicant has acquitted from
the very same charge in criminal case.
5. Per contra, learned Assistant Government Pleader opposed for
allowing the writ petition on the same lines and prayed to dismiss the same.
6. Having regard to the facts and circumstances and in view of the fact
that all the witnesses on whom the Enquiry Officer placed reliance did not
support the case of the prosecution when they were examined as witnesses in
the criminal Court prior to their examination before the Enquiry officer and also
when once charges and witnesses in both criminal prosecution and
departmental proceedings are one and the same, the disciplinary authority as
well as the appellate authority ought to have taken into consideration the
acquittal of the accused in the criminal case. The petitioner herein was
acquitted honourably and completely exonerated of the charge levelled
against him. Hence, the impugned order is liable to be set aside.
7. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed. The impugned proceedings
in Proc C.No.06/OEPR/A7/2014, dated 16.10.2017 issued by the 1st
respondent and its consequential orders passed by the 2nd respondent on
appeal petition vide Proc C.No.106/Appl/2019 R.O.O.No.684/2019 dated
14.8.2019 and the orders passed in Revision Petition vide D.Dis.No
599/T4/2021 dated 20.7.2022 are hereby set aside. No costs.
8. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, in this Writ Petition shall
stand closed.
_________________________
DR. K. MANMADHA RAO, J.
Date : 02-08-2024
Gvl
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE K. MANMADHA RAO
WRIT PETITION NO:28471 of 2022
Date : 02-08-2024
Gvl
