Kodati Shyamasunder vs State Of Telangana
2021 Latest Caselaw 1776 Tel

              HONOURABLE JUSTICE G. SRI DEVI

                        CRL.R.C.No.77 of 2021

ORDER:

1. The present revision, under Section 401 Cr.P.C., has been filed

by the revision petitioner against the impugned docket order, dated

04.01.2021, passed in C.F.No.126 of 2020, by the Special Sessions

Judge for trial of S.Cs and S.Ts (POA) Cases-cum-Additional District

Judge, Nalgonda, wherein the learned Special Sessions Judge,

dismissed the private complaint filed by the revision petitioner

against respondents 2 to 11 herein.

2. The relevant facts which led to filing of the present revision

are that the revision petitioner filed a private complaint against

respondents 2 to 11. It is alleged by the revision petitioner in the

complaint that he belongs to Scheduled Caste (Mala) community

and that the respondents have maintained discrimination on the

revision petitioner, as they did not consider his representation for

rectification of his Date of Birth in his service register. It is further

alleged that he filed W.A.No.622 of 2018, wherein this Court

directed the Principal Secretary to Government to consider his

representation, however, the respondents failed to comply with the

directions of this Court. It is further alleged that the respondents

neglected their legitimate duties as public servants and did not

rectify his Date of Birth and as such they have committed the

offences punishable under Sections 3 (1) (q) (r) and 4 (1) of the

GSD, J Crl.rc_77_2021

Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities)

Amendment Act, 2015 (for short "the Act") by referring the matter

to Miryalaguda Town Police Station under Section 156 (3) of the

Cr.P.C.

3. After recording the sworn statements of the revision petitioner

and other two witnesses, the learned Special Sessions Judge

dismissed the said private complaint. Challenging the same, the

present Criminal Revision Case is filed.

4. Heard learned Counsel for the revision petitioner and learned

Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents.

5. Learned Counsel for the revision petitioners would submit

that the order of the Court below is neither just nor sustainable

either in law or on facts. It is further submitted that the Court

below erred in dismissing the complaint on the ground that no prima

facie case is made out and as such the said order needs to be set

aside. It is also submitted that the Court below passed the

impugned order without considering the contention of the petitioner

that he made several representations to the respondent authorities to

rectify his Date of Birth in his service record as per the directions of

this Court in W.A.No.622 of 2018. It is further submitted that the

Court below ought to have seen that the respondents did not take

any steps to rectify the Date of Birth of the revision petitioner and

GSD, J Crl.rc_77_2021

kept the representations pending for more than 11 months only to

humiliate him one way or the other as he belongs to Scheduled

Caste (Mala) community, thereby committed the offence under

Section 4 (1) of the Act. It is further submitted that the Court below

ought to have seen that there is a willful and negligent act on the

part of the respondents in not considering the representations of the

revision petitioner. It is also submitted that the Court below ought

to have given an opportunity to the revision petitioner to defend his

case and without considering the reasons mentioned by the revision

petitioner, dismissed the complaint, which is arbitrary and contrary

to law and as such the impugned order needs to be set aside.

6. By filing Counter-affidavit, it is contended by the respondents

that initially the revision petitioner was appointed as Draughtsman

Grade-II on 29.06.1984 in Panchayat Raj Engineering Department

and in the service register, the name of the revision petitioner was

initially entered as K.Somulu and it was later changed as K.Shyam

Sundar as per A.P. Gazette Notification No.HSE/49, dated

01.03.1990; that his date of entry into service was entered as

29.06.1984 and his date of birth as 18.08.1960; that subsequent

promotions were given to the revision petitioner and that the

Engineer-in-Chief, Panchayat Raj, Hyderabad, has issued the

retirement notification orders vide proceedings dated 01.12.2017 to

the petitioner that he will be going to be retired from service on

GSD, J Crl.rc_77_2021

attaining the age of 58 years on 31.08.2018 A.N. It is further stated

that after more than 28 years from the date of joining into service, for

the first time in the year 2018, the revision petitioner made a

representation for alteration of his Date of Birth. It is further stated

that just five months before his retirement, the petitioner filed

W.A.No.622 of 2018 seeking a direction to the respondents to

consider the representation of the petitioner, dated 15.03.2018, for

alteration of his Date of Birth in the service records as 18.08.1963

instead of 18.08.1960. By its judgment, dated 24.04.2018, this Court

allowed W.A.No.622 of 2018, directing the Principal Secretary to the

Government, Panchayat Raj and Rural Development Department, to

consider the representation dated 15.03.2018 on its own merits

within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of

the order. It is further stated that pursuant to the judgment of this

Court, the Government after careful examination of the matter and

keeping in view of the existing rules, decided not to make any

alteration/modification at this stage i.e., at the verge of

superannuation in view of the orders of the Apex Court in Civil

Appeal No.1696 of 2011 dated 09.03.2011 and further informed that

the appeal petition of the petitioner to rectify his Date of Birth in his

service register as 18.08.1963 instead of 18.08.1960 is not feasible for

consideration, vide memo dated 25.06.2018. Subsequently, the

Government has re-allotted the revision petitioner from Panchayat

GSD, J Crl.rc_77_2021

Raj Engineering Department to Rural Water Supply and Sanitation

(now Mission Bhagiratha Department) vide G.O.Ms.No.44, dated

27.07.2018, just one month before his retirement and accordingly, the

revision petitioner reported to duty on 30.07.2018. After his joining,

retirement notification was also issued by the Rural Water Supply

and Sanitation (now Mission Bhagiratha) Department vide

proceedings dated 20.08.2018 and the orders were also issued to the

revision petitioner that he is going to be retired from the service on

attaining the age of (58) years on superannuation on 31.08.2018 A.N.

It is further submitted that the petitioner once again filed

W.P.No.28382 of 2018 before this Court for modification of date of

birth. Along with the Writ Petition, the revision petitioner also filed

I.A.No.1 of 2018, seeking a direction to the respondents to dispose of

the representation, dated 25.07.2018 with regard to the alteration of

Date of Birth in the service register of the petitioner and continue

him in service till attaining the age of superannuation treating his

date of birth as 18.08.1963 instead of 18.08.1960. By an order, dated

23.08.2018, this Court dismissed the said I.A. and no suspension has

been granted. The petitioner was relieved from the service on

superannuation on 31.08.2018 A.N. on attaining the age of 58 years.

It is also submitted that as seen from the documents submitted by

the revision petitioner along with his representation dated

30.04.2019 and 09.07.2019, the revision petitioner has obtained a

GSD, J Crl.rc_77_2021

fresh study and Conduct Certificate from the School authorities for

Class I to V. However, alteration of Date of Birth in SSC certificate

was not done by the authorities concerned as per the fresh study and

conduct certificates. The panchanama report of the Tahsildar and

Date of Birth certificate were obtained from Medical and Health

Department after the retirement notification was issued by the

Panchayat Raj Engineering Department. It is further submitted that

the Government has examined the proposals of the Engineer-in-

chief, Hyderabad, dated 27.05.2020, and observed that the orders

which have been issued in Government Memo

No.7893/MB.I/A1/2018, dated 26.02.2020, holds good and the

proposal has been rejected vide Memo, dated 12.08.2020, and the

same was communicated to the petitioner on 21.08.2020. Therefore,

prayed to dismiss the Criminal Revision Case.

7. The offences alleged by the revision petitioner against

respondents 2 to 10 are under Sections 3 (1) (q) (r) and 4 (1) (2) of the

Act. Before proceeding further, it would be appropriate to refer to

the said Sections, which are as under:

Section 3 (1) (q) of the Act:

"Whoever not being a member of SC or a ST give any false or frivolous information to any public servant and thereby caused such public servant to use his lawful power to the injury or annoyance of a member of a SC or a ST."

GSD, J Crl.rc_77_2021

Section 3 (1) (r) of the Act:

"Whoever not being a member of SC or a ST intentionally insults or intimidates with intent to humiliate a member of scheduled caste or scheduled tribe in any place within public view."

Section 4 (1) of the Act:

"Whoever being a public servant but not being a member of a scheduled caste or a scheduled tribe willfully neglects his duties required to be performed by him under this Act and the rules made there under shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than six months but which may extend to one year."

Section 4 (2) of the Act:

2) The duties of public servant referred to in sub-section (1) shall include--(a) to read out to an informant the information given orally, and reduced to writing by the officer in charge of the police station, before taking the signature of the informant;

(b) to register a complaint or a First Information Report under this Act and other relevant provisions and to register it under appropriate sections of this Act;

(c) to furnish a copy of the information so recorded forthwith to the informant;

(d) to record the statement of the victims or witnesses;

(e) to conduct the investigation and file charge sheet in the Special Court or the Exclusive Special Court within a period of sixty days, and to explain the delay if any, in writing;

(f) to correctly prepare, frame and translate any document or electronic record;

GSD, J Crl.rc_77_2021

(g) to perform any other duty specified in this Act or the rules made there under:

Provided that the charges in this regard against the public servant shall be booked on the recommendation of an administrative enquiry."

8. As seen from the material available on record, admittedly, the

petitioner was appointed as Draughtsman Gr-III on 29.06.1984 in

Panchayat Raj Engineering Department. In the Service Register

opened when he entered service, his Date of Birth was mentioned as

18.08.1960, as per S.S.C. Certificate produced by him, and the

signature and thumb impression of the revision petitioner was

obtained at the time of entry in the Service Register, which was also

countersigned by the concerned. Subsequently, the revision

petitioner was promoted to various categories and lastly he was

promoted as Deputy Executive Engineer on 01.02.2004. The record

further discloses that the Panchayat Raj Engineering Department

was bifurcated into Panchayat Raj Engineering Department and

Rural Water Supply and Sanitation (now renamed Mission

Bhagiratha) Department and basing on the option exercised by the

petitioner, he was allotted to Rural Water Supply and Sanitation

Department. Later, the petitioner made a representation to the

Government to allot him to Panchayat Raj Department, and the

same was rejected. Aggrieved by the said rejection, the petitioner

filed O.A.No.6572 of 2009 before the A.P. Administrative Tribunal,

GSD, J Crl.rc_77_2021

which was allowed by the Tribunal directing the Government to

allot the petitioner to Panchayat Raj Department. Challenging the

same, the Government filed W.P.Nos.23206 and 23194 of 2009 before

this Court, wherein interim orders have been passed suspending the

order passed by the Tribunal. Further, in pursuance of the Vacate

Stay Petitions filed by the petitioner the said interim orders were

vacated and as such the petitioner continued in Panchayat Raj

Department. Again after more than eight years, the petitioner made

a request to permit him to withdraw his Original Application filed

before the Tribunal and to re-allot him to Rural Water Supply and

Sanitation Department and accordingly, this Court passed orders in

favour of the petitioner. Pursuant to the said orders, the

Government issued G.O.Ms.No.44, dated 27.07.2018, re-allotting the

petitioner to R.W.S. & S. (MB) Department just before one month of

his retirement. Before his re-allotment to Mission Bhagiratha

(RWS&S) Department, the petitioner preferred W.A.No.622 of 2018,

seeking a direction to the respondents herein to consider his request

for alteration of Date of Birth in his service records as 18.08.1963

instead of 18.08.1960 and the same was allowed. Pursuant to the

directions of this Court in W.A.No.622 of 2018, the Government, had

examined the matter and decided that the rectification of the Date of

Birth of the petitioner in his service register as 18.08.1963 instead of

18.08.1960 is not feasible for consideration at this stage in view of the

GSD, J Crl.rc_77_2021

existing rules and also the orders passed by the Apex Court in Civil

Appeal No.1696 of 2011 dated 09.03.2011. Again, the petitioner,

after joining in RWS&S Department (now Mission Bhagiratha) and

just before eight days of his retirement, filed W.P.No.28382 of 2018

before this Court seeking a direction to the Principal Secretary to

Government, Rural Water Supply and Sanitation Department,

Hyderabad, to dispose of his representation dated 25.07.2018 with

regard to alteration of Date of Birth and along with the writ petition

he also sought interim relief seeking suspension of the proceedings

No.Ser.II(1)/23346/ 2004, dated 01.12.2017 issued by the Principal

Secretary to Government, Panchayat Raj and Rural Development

Department, pending disposal of the writ petition. By an order,

dated 23.08.2018, while disposing of I.A.No.1 of 2018, this Court

observed that the Rules governing entry of date of birth and that the

petitioner came to this Court few weeks before his retirement and

that there is no clerical error in the entry of date of birth, balance of

convenience is not in favour of the petitioner. This Court further

observed that his continuation in service may have an adverse

impact on others in service/aspiring for promotion. Thereafter, the

petitioner was relieved from service on attaining the age of

superannuation on 31.08.2018 A.N. After his retirement, the

petitioner again made a representation dated 05.03.2020 and

proposals were submitted by the Engineer-in-Chief, Mission

GSD, J Crl.rc_77_2021

Bhagiratha, Hyderabad, vide Lr.No. G2/DEE-VI/MB/605/19, dated

27.05.2020 to the Government, to alter the Date of Birth of the

petitioner, which was rejected by the Government vide Memo

No.7893/MB.1/A1/2018, dated 12.08.2020.

9. The record further discloses that after receiving the said

rejection, the petitioner filed the private complaint on 06.11.2020

before the Court below. The sworn statements of the petitioner and

other two witnesses, who were produced by the petitioner, were

recorded by the Court below.

10. In order to constitute an offence punishable under Section

3 (1) (q) of the Act, the person, who is not a member of SC or ST,

give any false or frivolous information to a public servant to cause

injury or annoyance of a member of a SC or a ST. Further, in order

to constitute an offence punishable under section 3 (1) (r) of the Act,

the person, who is not a member of SC or ST, intentionally insults or

intimidates with an intent to humiliate a member of SC or SC in any

place within the public view.

11. Nothing has been found in the sworn statements of the

petitioner as well as other two witnesses recorded by the Court

below, that the respondents 2 to 10 have made false information to

the public servant in order to cause injury or annoyance and that

they intentionally insulted or humiliated the petitioner at any place

GSD, J Crl.rc_77_2021

within the public view as they furnished the information basing on

the service register, which was opened at the time of his joining into

service. Further, a perusal of the material available on record that

basing on the SSC Memo produced by the petitioner only, his date of

birth was entered in his service register, therefore, the Court below

has rightly held that the ingredients constituting for the offences

punishable under Sections 3 (1) (q) and (r) of the Act, are not

attracted.

12. Further, the material available on record did not disclose that

respondents 2 to 10 failed to perform their duties being public

servants as referred to in Section 4 (1) and (2) of the Act. The

respondents 2 to 10 have performed their duties by furnishing the

required information to the authorities concerned. Therefore, the

Court below has rightly dismissed the complaint filed by the

petitioner after recording valid and cogent reasons. Hence, I see no

illegality or irregularity in the order passed by the trial Court.

13. Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed.

14. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand

dismissed.

_____________________ JUSTICE G. SRI DEVI

22.06.2021 gkv/Gsn

GSD, J Crl.rc_77_2021