Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Jammula Sambasiva Rao vs Ministry Of Defence, New Delhi 3 Ors on 6 September, 2024
APHC010299832003
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI [3457]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
FRIDAY, THE SIXTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N
WRIT PETITION NO: 18391/2003
Between:
Jammula Sambasiva Rao ...PETITIONER
AND
Ministry Of Defence New Delhi 3 Ors and Others ...RESPONDENT(S)
Counsel for the Petitioner:
1. A V S LAXMI
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. BETHAPALLI SURYANARAYANA (CENTRAL GOVT COUNSEL)
The Court made the following:
ORDER:
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the
respondents.
2. The grievance of the petitioner is that the respondents have imposed
the punishment of reduction of pay to the minimum of time scale of pay i.e.,
Rs.3,200/- from Rs.3,880/- for a period of five years with immediate effect.
The reduction will also have effect of postponing his future increments of pay.
The petitioner was working as a Head Constable in the 2nd respondent
establishment. Articles of charges were framed against the petitioner on the
premise that he contracted immoral, unhealthy, and undesirable relations with
another married woman namely Smt.Dhanalakshmi and often visited her
house for malafide benefits. The same was considered as misconduct by the
3rd respondent and article of charges dated 24.01.2002 were framed.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that even as per the
statements of complainant, the petitioner had borrowed money from the
complainant and that on her demand for repayment, the petitioner could not
repay the same. The financial transactions between the petitioner and the
complainant have triggered the false complaints. Learned counsel further
submits that insofar as the allegations of illegal intimacy with the complainant
concerned, the same is no longer an offence as held by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in Joseph Shine vs. Union of India 1 . He further submits that the
punishment imposed is a major punishment and is disproportionate to the
charges framed and that the impugned proceedings deserve to be set-aside. It
is also submitted that the petitioner filed a revision before the revisional
authority which was also rejected vide proceedings dated 02.07.2003 and
confirmed the penalty imposed by the disciplinary authority.
4. Learned Central Government counsel appearing for the respondents
submits that the petitioner has conducted a major misconduct which amounts
gross indiscipline and unbecoming on his part being a responsible member of
the disciplined armed force. It is further submitted that no grounds are set out
in the Writ Petition from dislodging the findings of the disciplinary authority. He
further submits that a proper and detailed enquiry was conducted and ample
(2019) 3 SCC 39
opportunity was extended to the petitioner to submit his version in reply to the
charges. It is also submitted that the petitioner participated in the enquiry and
submitted that apart from financial transaction between the petitioner and the
complainant, the petitioner had undesirable equation with the complainant,
which was established during the enquiry.
5. Perused the detailed enquiry report and also the order passed. The
respondents have recorded the statements of eight witnesses and the
complainant has narrated various incidents which would point finger of guilty
at the petitioner. The reliance on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in
the matter of Joseph Shine vs. Union of India cannot be made applicable
retrospectively.
6. Considering the detailed manner in which the enquiry was conducted,
this Court finds no grounds for unsettling the findings of the disciplinary
committee.
7. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as
to costs.
As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.
_______________
HARINATH.N,J
MH
06.09.2024
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N
WRIT PETITION NO: 18391/2003
MH
06.09.2024
