Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
K.Srinivas Srinu vs The Government Of Andhra Pradesh on 13 November, 2024
1
APHC010444012019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI [3310]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
WEDNESDAY ,THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE K MANMADHA RAO
WRIT PETITION NO: 431 OF 2020
Between:
K.Srinivas @ Srinu ...PETITIONER
AND
The Government Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S)
Counsel for the Petitioner:
1. K SRINIVASA PRASAD
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. GP FOR HOME (AP)
The Court made the following:
ORDER:
This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
seeking following relief:
"to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly one in the
th
nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 4 respondent in issuing
impugned proceedings in D.O.No.29/2015 (C.No.29/OE.PR/2011) dated 19.01.2015
to award the punishment of PPI for aperiod of three years with effect on his future
increments" without taking into consideration of the fact that the petitioner was
acquired in Criminal Case in C.C.No.192 of 2011, dated 10.10.2012 and
rd
consequential order in R.O.No. 53 of 2016, dated 22.01.2016 of the 3 respondent;
further proceedings dated 19.09.2016; further proceedings dated 06.04.2011 and
proceeding dated 26.05.2017 is illegal, arbitrary, violative of Article 14, 16 and 21 of
the Constitution of India, apart from violative of Principles of Natural Justice and the
same are liable to be set aside; and consequently direct the respondent authorities to
issue consequential benefits such as pay fixation in the revised scale, seniority with
continuity of service, etc., with all other benefits in the interest of justice and pass
such other and further orders".
2. Heard Mr. K. Srinivasa Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioner and
learned Assistant Government Pleader, Home for the respondents.
3. It is the case of the petitioner is that he was appointed as Police
Constable on 15.08.1993 in West Godavari District. While so, he was
suspended from service on 11.03.2011 by the 4th respondent on allegations.
Later the 4th respondent revoked the suspension order vide proceedings dated
29.11.2011 and directed him to report to the Reserve Inspector, Armed
Reserve, Eluru and he joined duties. While the matter stood thus, the
C.C.No.192 of 2011 is ended in acquittal vide judgment dated 10.10.2012.
After suspension of the petitioner, he was served with Charge Memo dated
03.08.2010 and conducted an enquiry. Basing on enquiry report dated
25.09.2014, the 4th respondent issued show-cause notice calling for
explanation, for which the petitioner has submitted reply. Without taking into
consideration of his explanation, the 4th respondent has imposed punishment
of PPI for a period of three years with effect on his future increments and
pension' vide proceedings dated 19.01.2015. Assailing the same, the
petitioner has filed an Appeal dated 13.04.2015 before the 3 rd respondent
exonerating him from the charges, which was rejected vide proceedings dated
22.01.2016. Further revision petition filed and the same was also rejected
without considering the grounds urged by the petitioner. Hence, the present
writ petition came to be filed.
4. During hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner reiterated the
contents urged in the writ affidavit and submitted that this matter is squarely
covered by an order of the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in
W.P.No.16104 of 2013, dated 10.06.2013 and also order of this Court in
W.P.No.15482 of 2021, dated12.09.2024, hence requested to pass similar
order in this writ petition also.
5. Perused the record.
6. No doubt, it is well settled that though an acquittal is recorded in
criminal proceedings, it is open for the disciplinary authority to enquire into the
charges framed against the employee and at the same time, if the charges
framed in both the criminal and disciplinary proceedings are one and the
same, the evidence recorded is also same, in such circumstances, it has been
held by the Hon'ble Apex Court that no different view can be taken by the
disciplinary authority other than the view taken in criminal proceedings.
7. In the instant case, on perusal of the enquiry report and the
Judgement of the trial court in C.C.No.192 of 2011, dated 10.10.2012, would
show that the charge framed against the petitioner are one and same in both
the proceedings and the criminal case was ended in acquittal. Therefore, no
further enquiry is required on same charges.
8. By taking into consideration of the finding recorded by the criminal
court and relying on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in "G.M.Tank v.
State of Gujarath and Others"1, the impugned order dated 19.01.2015 by
the 4th respondent and consequential rejection of appeal by the 3rd respondent
is declaring as illegal and arbitrary and same is hereby set aside.
9. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of, while directing the
respondents to grant consequential benefits such as pay fixation in the revised
scales, seniority with continuity of service with all other benefits, within three
(03) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. There shall be no
order as to costs.
The miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall also stand closed.
______________________________
DR. JUSTICE K. MANMADHA RAO
Date: 13.11.2024
KK
(2006) 5 SCC 446
